a—4.

4

[W. B. SCANDBETT.

47. Mr. Hall.] You think, if the municipal endowments were sold, the money would be spent and would disappear before long: would not the same danger be present if the Government sold their leasehold lands?— Yes ; but the money might be put into a separate account and earmarked. 48. Well, might not the same apply to municipal endowments ?•—Yes; but the endowments of the local bodies provide them with revenue for all time, and they should not be allowed to sell them. 49. Then, should not the rental from Crown leases be considered in the same light, so that the State might have a revenue for all time? —The Government represents the people of the country, and if it is an advantage to the people of the country, as I think it is, to possess the freehold, they ought to get it. 50. Is it unreasonable to compel tenants who have taken up partially improved land on most liberal terms to adhere to the terms of their lease ? —No; they take up the leases with their eyes open, and they are entitled to carry out the conditions of the lease; but I see no reason why they should not have the option of buying the freehold. When I stated that the lessees should pay a price for the freehold that would bring in 4 per cent, to the Government, I thought their rent was fixed on a 4-per-cent. basis. Now that I find it is 5 per cent., I think they should pay a price which would bring in the Government the equivalent of 5 per cent, on a 4-per-cent. calculation. In dealing with the lands of the colony successful settlement should be the first consideration of the State, and not revenue; but revenue is necessarily the first consideration of a Municipal Council —revenue for all time —and consequently municipal endowments must not be sold. Geokge Richakd Hilton examined. 51. The Chairman.] What is your occupation ? —I am a market-gardener. 52. How long have you been in the colony'?— About thirty years. 53. Have you been engaged in market-gardening all the time?— Most of it. In conjunction with that I go in for poultry-farming. 54. Will you just tell us the particular topics you wish to give evidence about ?—I stand here as a village-homestead settler at South Invercargill, and I also represent a number of settlers out there who are prevented from coming in to give evidence to-day. I may say lam not in favour of the indiscriminate granting of the freehold. I would only grant the freehold subject to very stringent building clauses. I think all Crown tenants should have the option of the freehold, subject to the condition I have stated. For instance, I occupy 10 acres. Well, in my lease there should have been a clause giving me the right to the freehold, say, at the end of thirty years, providing I have erected substantial dwellings to the value, we will say, of not less than £200. I wish to explain my meaning by stating that there is a freehold property adjoining my land. It is still in a state of nature, and is a serious hamper to me because it is overrun with weeds. I took up these 10 acres some years ago with the idea of going in for poultry-farming. I got plans and specifications prepared to show what I intended to do, and I went to the Government Advances to Settlers Office for a loan. I was then informed that the Office would not entertain any proposal for a loan until the buildings had been erected on the ground. Then I went to all the financial institutions in the town, and I found that not one of them would entertain my proposal because the land was a Government leasehold. They had no faith whatever in a Government leasehold. The previous witness, Mr. Scandrett, spoke of the municipal leaseholds. They are altogether different from the Government leaseholds, because it is a very easy matter to get a loan on a municipal leasehold : you merely have to take your plan and specifications to any building society and tell them you have a municipal lease and intend to do so-and-so. They consider the proposal and give you an answer, Yes or No. After a long time I was able to finance the thing a bit and I got a good building put upon my place. I again approached the Advances to Settlers Office, and, after paying the valuer's fee, the valuer came up and valued my buildings at £235. I got a reply back from Wellington that the Government refused to entertain my proposal. They gave me no reason whatever. I was placed in a very serious difficulty. I wanted money to pay those who had been good enough to stand the chance of my getting a loan. I did not know what to do, and, to cut the story short, I actually had to call in the aid of the member for the district (Mr. Hanan), the Hon. Mr. Fold wick, of the Legislative Council, and the Hon. Sir J. G. Ward, a Minister of the Crown, before I could force the Advances to Settlers Office to grant me a loan. I am not personally acquainted with the Minister, but I wrote him an account of the position I was placed in, and he wrote to the Board and wanted to know why my application was refused, and they then informed me they would give me £75. I think it is a scandalous shame that a settler with sufficient security cannot get a loan unless he has the influence of a Minister of the Crown. Now, the law provides that they may advance 50 per cent, on leaseholds, and I ask you if £75 is the half of £235. This £75 was not enough to meet my requirements, but I was in such a position that I had to take it. I then found that the consent of the Commissioner of Crown Lands had to be obtained before I could get the loan. I want to know what it has to do with him. Further, I had to pay an extra fee of ss. to get the consent of the Commissioner of Crown Lands. In addition to this, I had to prepare three mortgage deeds, which all meant further expense. Well, in a little while I was so hampered that I was forced to get some money somewhere to pay off my liabilities, and the only way I could do so was by giving a mortgage over the whole of my plant. I have a plant in connection with my business worth £600, and I had to pay 8 per cent, for a loan on that plant. Now, a gentleman in this town told me that if I had the option of the freehold even in thirty years' time he would give me £200 at 5 per cent, on my dwellinghouse alone. He did not ask for any security over my goods and chattels. No one has any faith in a Government lease. I might say there is a general feeling of dissatisfaction amongst the Government leaseholders in the neighbourhood in which I live. They feel they labour under a great disadvantage. I think they should have the option of acquiring the freehold, subject, of course, to a very stringent building clause.