SMALL CRAZING RUNS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2335, 30 October 1908, Page 2

SMALL CRAZING RUNS.

an open letter to the MINISTER pF LANDS.

The following letter has been handed to us by Mr. G. J. Black for publication:— [To the Editor.] Sir, —I enclose you a letter for publication on above subject. I may inform you that I sent a copy to the Right Hon. Sir Joseph Ward, on October 16th. I informed, hint that 1 would expect ia reply and finished up with these words: —‘T am determined that if a renewal of run 43 is not granted to the present- lesseethat I will publish the enclosed letter in all the leading newspapers in the Dominion, and will see' tnat every Grown tenant gets a copy of it. i mow leave the matter in your, hands and will oxpect a reply by the 28th inst. 1 received a telegram from Sir Joseph Ward to-the following effect:—“Will be very glad to look into the matter as soon as it is possible for me to do so. —J. G. Ward.” this being;the 28th and.no satisfactory reply .forthcoming I now forward you a copy of the letter for publication. I leave the matter for the public to judge. Thanking you in anticipation.—l am etc. G. J; BLACK. AN OPEN LETTER,

The Hon. Robert McNab, Minister for Lands, Wellington.

Sir, —You, no doubt, think that great praise is due to you for your administration of tho Land Act under the present Government. In sonic instances I have no doubt but that vour services have been of benefit to the country, but- in other instances I hold that: 'your proposals are most drastic, unfair, and a distinct breach of faith on the part of the Government, whose laws you are there to administrate an a just- and equitable manner. Now, sir, the part or the Land Act under which 1 am cl the opinion you are acting most unjustly is that dealing with the small grazier runs taken up under the Act of 1385. I understand that there are runs taken up under this Act in all parts of the Dominion, but I only intend to allude to those I am acquainted with in the district of Poverty Bay. Of these there are some 23 runs of an average area of 4000 acres, or a total of 92,000 acres, nearly all these are situated inland, from 2a to 50 miles from the coast. The bulk of these lands were purchased- from the natives at from 2s 6d to 5s per acre. To induce anyone to tako up these runs about 18S5 very liberal conditions had to be offered, they were advertised in fairly large blocks at first, and as there were no applications they were cut into smaller blocks and the rent reduced. I have before me an advertisement which appeared in the “‘Poverty Bay Herald” in 1887, as follows:—Arakihi South Run, about 12,100 acres, upset annual rental £125 per acre). Description of land, open and scrubby, a little bush, good soil, very broken, unformed road through block.” mis block was eventually cut into three, and let for lid per acre for the first 21 years, with the right of renewal for a second 21 years at an increased rental of 2j per cent- on the unimproved value—see clause 209, Land Act, lodo. Now, to guide land seekers in those days the Government published a New Zealand Land Guide (a copy of which I have before me). It is issued under the authority of the Hon. C. F. Richardson, Minister of Land, and it says, in plain English:— The object of this little publication is to afford, more especially to persons who may have lately arrived in New Zealand, and to others who may be ignorant of the land system of the Colony, such general information as to the character and localities of Grown Lands, and the terms and conditions on which they may be obtained, as will enable those in quest of land to set about its selection without much trouble. On page 24 we find the following under tile heading : Small Grazing Runs. The lease is for 21 years witfi the first offer at tho end of that term of a renewal for a second term of 21 years. If the offer is refused the lease is put up to auction, burdened with the valuation lor improvements etc. On page 86 may be seen a description of several of the runs to let in Poverty Bay, which have all been taken up and broken in under these conditions, and on page IUS may be seen as follows:—“Small Grazing Runs—Open .for selection in terms of Part 7 of the Land Act 1885, on lease for 21 years with right of renewal 'and- coni>ensation for improvements,” then following a description of 36 grazing runs to be let under these conditions. Now, sir, I understand your contention is that you have power to resume these grazing runs for close settlement. I would like you to point oat to me by what authority you can do this, without a distinct breach of faith with these grazing run tenants. Do you think for ono moment that any man in his sanity would take up a block of 40U0or 50u0 acres of heavy bush land in the backblocks and deny himself all the comforts of civ liisation, and start clearing, sowing down, and fencing such a property if he had 119 1 tfio prospect in view of getting his second term of 2.L years. You,' sir, must, know that lor the first ten years at least not 011 c of these grazing runs has earned enough to pay interest on the money spent on the clearing—many of these runs have still a considerable amount 01 bush left on them, and it is only within the last few years when wool reached, a high -price that anything has been made out of them at all. It is just now when the properties, having been broken in and cleared up alter years of arduous toil, that the lessees expect to get some recompense for their pioneering work, you step in and want to resume the runs —you surely cannot be acquainted with the conditions as I have pointed out under which these runs were let, or you would "not attempt to deprive these, our very best class of settlers, of their just rights. .1 know. many, of these runs personally and I can safely say that even if you did cut' them into three or four sections, -not ono bale more of wool or another frozen sheep or lamb would be auded to our exports than is being done at the present time by the occupants of thtse grazing runs, who are men of experience and not experimentalists. I would point- out to you that these, pioneers have increased the value qf tljus flats pf-cflflfttrjr ff?w the iW

shillings per acre which, the Government of that'day paid to the natives to an average of £3 per acre unimproved value. This unearned increment or hard earned increment has been sololy given to the land by the exertions and industry of the lessees. They have'had no railways or public works to- boom up tho value of tho Hand. In. many instances they have raised special loans to. make roads and building bridges, rating themselves for that purpose. They are not clamoring for a reduction' in their rent, as are many of the Crown settlers in other districts. They are willing to pay the increased rent on the fresh valuations for their second term as" laid down by the Act of 1885, “Section 209, Clause A and B.” If it was not intended to renew the - l ease can you tell me why these clauses - were put there at all ? I understand that vou have said it was not the intention of those who passed this Act to grant a renewal of the second term. Then, Sir, if such was the case will you tell me the meaning of these words uttered by the late Hon. John, Ballance, Minister of Lands, and others, as copied from “Hansard”, August 1885. Mr Ballance, Minister of Lands-, says:— “One of tho most important provisions in this Bill (Land Act 1885) is that- in reference -to small runs. One of the greatest drawbacks to the .pastoral interests is the insecurity of tenure, and it is the opinion of a great many people who have made this question a study, that if something in the form of perpetual tenure could be granted in tho -case of the pastoral country of the colony, wo would double tho quantity of the production of our wool, because upon the insecure tenure it is impossible to expect- that people will make any considerable amount of improvements. I think, therefore, that the provisions of the Bill in regard to grazing runs are by far the most important provisions of the measure, and that they will tend to induce the settlement of the country. The time is coming, in my opinion, when we shall apply tho perpetual lease system, not only to small runs but to the whole of the pastoral lands of tho country. There is a very large quantity of land in this North Island which is only available for pastoral purposes. Then with regard to the large pastoral runs in Canterbury and Otago, the leases of which' will soon fall in, it appears to me that we should cut- many of them up into small rune -and give fixity of tenure. It would be a great mistake to establish a number of small runs with uncertain and unsatisfactory tenure in. Canterbury and Otago, and one of the first and most important principles in dealing with those runs “ that there should be something like certainty of tenure—say for a period of 21 years with a power of renewal at the end of that time.” Sir George Grey, following, said: •x ou are to.d by tne Minister 01 Lanas chat, bv giving a perpetual tenure tor tuns you will get- rid or tfie rabbits, i tell vou that, by letting perpetual leased small runs carrying übuU slieep, you will get fid ot the rabbits tar oetter than by larger runs.”

Mr. W. Rolleston, speaking on the Bill, said: “Email runs mean settlement-, they mean a considerable amount of improvements, and by our legislation in respect 01 these small runs, we should offer a premium tor improvements; we should see tfiut the tenure is such as to encourage improvements and the increase or products of the country.”

Can you, sir, construe this into any other meaning than that those tenants • were to have the right ot renewal which you are now trying to deprive them of. Vou boast ot tne advantages of leasehold over the neenold, let me tell you that Fad any ot those tenants bought the fieehold die land adjoining any ot those runs when it could have been obtained at from os to 10s per acre they would have been much better off financially than they are to-day, as tke increased value of the land would belong to themselves, whilst with the leasehod it belongs to the Crown.. Ynfoitunately most of these, original settleis were men of small means but largo hearts. They took this country up when most of tlicir capnal was invested in a horse axes, bill-hooks, tents and tucker. These arc the men, or their descendants, you arc now desirous of ejecting off the land to pi others in their place who would wither at the thought of having to cloar a 4000 aero block or buwli. I now' wish to bring under your notice another class who have boughtout the former lessees, paying them a good price for their goodwill. As x am interested -in tins I will speak plainly on the matter and endeavour to show you the gross injustice of your administration of the small grazing run tenure. Having been farming on Banks Peninsula for thirty years, I sold out some three and a half years ago and came to Poverty Bay, where I bought a freehold. Wishing to give one of my sons >a start in life 1 bought him a •lease of Grazing Run No. 43, originally taken up in 1888, under the 1885 Act-. It had fotir years to run on the first term with a right of renewal, if again let, for another term of 21 years. .Before purchasing I made full inquiries as to the right of renewal, and was assured by the leading solicitor of Gisborne that I had an absolute right of renewal, unless the Crown decided, to sell the freehold of it. Under these conditions it was bought. The area wa« 4370 acres, 1000 of which was in bush. The outgoing tenant was paid £3 15s per acre for his goodwill, amounting to £16,387 10s. My son came up and took possession, and has resided on it ever since. He has felled and burned 750 acres of bush, sown at down and subdivided it at a, cost of £2OOO. making a total of £18,378 10s. The first term is nearly up, and lie receives notice from tho Land Board, acting under your instructions, that the run is to be resunied for 1 closer settlement, and lie is offered the right of renewal of 900 acres of it, tlio poorest land oil tho block, and in the event of his not accepting that he is offered £13,743, 7s 6d, as the value of improvements. This means a loss of £4,<344 6d h ar v cash, 'in addition to being deprived ot his second term. He lodges a protest and applies for a rehearing—-this is granted. With a view to getting some measure of justice, I went to Wellington land interviewed you personally, You gave mo but a brief interview in the street when I explained to you my son’s case. I comp ained to you of the power placed in the hands of a public officer, such as the Grown Lands Ranger, whose recommendations, involving the loss of.- several ilwpand eowe

.•un holders, were generally adopted by the Land Board. Your last words vO me were:—“You had better interview the Land Board. I am prepared to act on their recommendations.” Accordingly, on my son’s bell alf I interviewed tho - Land Board (lie being .absent in Australia). I put the case fairly bofoxe the Board and showed them the amount of capital that would be- lost if he had to accept the amount offered for tho improvements. The Board took a favorable view of the case, and the foliowing resolution appeared in their minute book:—Napier, June 12tli. 1908. R. G. Black, Small Grazing Run 43, Waingaromia: Mr, Black senior waited on -the Board and it was decided to recommend for the favorable consideration of the Minister, “That under the circumstances now disclosed the former resolution, herein -be rescinded, and that Mr. Black bo now offered -a renewal of Ills lease in -its entirety, as was done in the case of S.G.R. 42, WaingaromTa, held by F. Hall—proposed by Mr. Hyde and seconded by Mr. Bartram. Now, sir, that is the result of my interview with the Land Board. We will see how you have carried out your promise to me that you .acted on tho recommendation of the Land Board. The resolution is duly forwarded on to you. You returned the document to the Under-Secretary with this endorsement on it:—“Write Board asking for an explanation of the seeming inconsistency. Do they say ;it will not be- subdivided?” The matter was referred to the Commissioner, whose reply is dated July 2nd. “At last meeting of the Board, on June 12t1i., the Board was of the opinion that the justice of the case warranted a recommendation for a reversion of its former decision, it being considered that seeing the Ranger’s report- contained alternative proposals, it left it open for the -Board to reconsider the circumstances of the case which were shown to he similar to those connected witli run 42 adjoining, for, in that instance, the same alternative proposals were made in the ranger’s report. The change of front attributed to the Board was considered to be justified by the provisions of the Act, and was not intended to cast the onus on the [Minister as inferred.” On July Bth the Under-Secretary transmitted to the Minister e the reasons given above by the Commissioner, and concluded liis memo by saying “With the full explanation now given J beg to recommend tliat the reversal of the Board’s decision, and their present resolution that Mr. Black be offered a renewal of the run in question be aporoved.” Now. sir, how did you treat this communication? Not by following the recommendations of tho Board, or tho \ nder-Secretary. On July 10th, you directed the Valuer-General to report on Mr. Black’s run. Three weeks later this report was forwarded by the ValuerGeneral—lie having appointed the local valuer, Mr. C. F. Lewis to report. His report was that the run was suitable for cutting into three. This report was forwarded on to you, and the lessee waited on you and asked for a. renewal of the lease. Y’ou endorsed the communication thus:— “Saw Mr. Black this evening and declined to agree to renewal.” Ihe lessee than asked you it he might ha\e the preference over one of the subdivisions. You told him that vou would have to consult the AttorneyGeneral to see if you could grant it. Was it neessary for you to consult the Attorney-General before renewing the leases of luu 42 and 46 (which you have renewed in toto?). You asked him if he would take a renewable lease which he declined, stating tliat he preferred a grazing run lease. He then forwarded to you tho following letter: —

The Hon. Minister for Lands. Dear Sir, —Following on our conversation of this morning I wish to apply for the most southern section of S.G.R. 43, Hawke’s Bav Land District, and would ask that I be given preference if it is put up under tlie optional system, or tliat I. be given tlie right of taking it up as a small grazing run, under tlie Act of 1885. 1 would again impress on you. that I have practically broken t-liis jji after hard work, and have lost money over it, and that I have not a penny unvested in any other land as stated in the first report sent to you by the Land Board. Hoping you can see your way to grant this request.—l remain yours faithfully, R. G BLACK.

The Under-Secretary then wrote to the Commissioner as follows: August Bth, - “X have to request you to inform the Land Board that in view of the report by the Valuer-General that the run can be subdivided into smaller areas tlie Minister of Lands cannot, see his w r ay to agree to a renewal of the lease being granted to Mr. Black.” The Land Board, on August 14th. considered the above letter in Committee .and decided that the run should be subdivided into three, under. the optional system. On receiving notice of this last move, Mr. Black wired you on September Ist. as follows: “Notice to offer 900 acres small grazing run 43 issued by Commissioner, on authority -Under-Secretary when in Napier, May 11th.” This evidently surprised you as you wired Jliirn: ‘(Forward at once copy of the original notice you refer to re the 900 acres.”- After considerable amount of correspondence between .yourself, the Hinder-Secret a ry, and Die Commissioner I find tlie loliowuig'memo from you to the Under-Secretary: — “In view of the mistaken notice given to memo of March 4th., 1908, and Mr. Black’s application for preference over one of the three subdivisions, ascertain if one of the areas or about 900 acres or thereabouts could be given him as a small grazing run; also the power to renew runs 42 and and the other two put up onoptional. Now' |Sir, what J want *9 h. n <PX is thxs > “If you had pov'er to veto the resolution- of the Land Board, vdien they recommended a renew 7 al of the .whole run, also tho power to renew runs 42 and 46, why d’o you have to enquire from the Commissioner if ho could ascertain if'an area of 900 acres could be given Mr, Black?” Tho fact .of the -lessees of runs 42 and 46 boing strong Government supporters could have nothing to do with tlie decision in their case. The next &ct in tlie drama, or farCo, whichever you may call at, comes off at Gisborne, on October 12th. when the Board meet and go into committee, and arrive, after the- fourth decision, back to the Starting- point- Tho following

motion recorded:—“ln regard to S.G.R. 43, Mr. R. G. Black, on the motion of Mr. Bartram, seconded by Mr. Hyde' is was decided to rescind tlie resolution of August 14th (that _he run should bo cut in 'three- and- offered under the optional system) 1908, page 221, and to recommend that .an areJ of about 900 acres (more or less) bo cut out as a small grazing run and lease thereover be offered to Mr. Black, tho balance to be subdivided into areas of 500 and 800 acres, and .offered under the optional system.” Now, sir, in the beginning of my letter I have pointed out to you the rights of renewal that these lessees have if tho Board determine to re-let. I have quoted the late Hon. John Ballance’s views on the question. of renewal. These yoti ruthlessly cast to ono side and with the autocracy of the Czar ot Russia you propose to -let- these runs to others who have toiled not, ‘ neither liavo they spun, in the making of these blocks. If, Sir, you have a genuine desire for tho progress of tlie country, and for an increase of our exports, why do you not open up the thousands of acres that belong to the Crown in this district ? I ixm informed by the Lands Department that tho Grown hold 101,800 acres of unoccupied bush land in this district. There arc people looking for land: why not -open this up and put it on the market? You, SR, find more congenial work in baiting the settlers of grazing runs Avhose only crime is that they have taken these runs up from a former Government at a- rental of 2-) per cent on the unimproved value. What you hope to gain for the country by your drastic measures - it is difficult to ascertain. I may remind you, Sir, that possession is nine points of the law, and that these lessees are not going to lay down while you walk over them. If they are turned' out it will be at the point of tho bayonet. I hope to see such a revulsion of feeling at t-lie coming elections that the farmers of the Dominion both large and small will see that it is not to their interests to keep such a Government in power as we have at present, who are attempting, through tlie maladministration of the Land Act, to oust settlers who, by everj 7 moral right, are fully entitled to ,-a renewal of their leases. Now, Sir, having dealt with the vindictive treatment dealt, out to tho lessee of Run 43, I come to the lessee of Run 42, who I may remind you is a gentleman named Frederick Hall, owner and licensee of the Masonic Hotel, Gisborne, and a staunch sup nor ter of your Party. In. the Crown Land Ranger’s report on this run it was stated that 1200 acres of it should be cut off and put up under the optional system. The Hawke’s Bay Land 'Board adopted this suggestion and notice was sent to Mr Hall to that effect. Now comes the part where the political wires were pulled and with good results to the iossee. Mr Hall forwards a strong protest to tho Hon. Jas. Carroll, and in case this should not carry enough weight, Mr Hall proceeds to ’Wellington and interviews Mr Carroll. The next thing wo hear is that Mr Hall has received notice from the Commissioner that the lease of the whole of the run is to be renewed. Now, Sir, it' 1 can read the Act rightly, this power is in the hands of the Land Board only, but in this case they are totally ignored, and the under-Secrc-tary for Lands, on tho representation of Mr Carroll’s letter on Mr Hall’s behalf, takes upon himself the responsibility to forward instruction to the Commissioner to renew the lease. I understand that your contention is, that Run 42 was not suitable for closer settlement. Now', fcJir, if Run 42 was not suitable why should Run 45 ho suitable? The two runs are almost joining, -and experts say it is a toss up which is the better of the two. If the carrying capacity has anything to do with it then Run 42 should be the ono to cut up. If you will take the trouble to look up the sheep returns for 1908, you will find that Run 42, F. Hall’s 4195 acres, is carrying 9344 sheep, whilst Run 45, J. Caesar, 3358 acres, is carrying 4921. Therefore the Run 42, which is carrying 21 sheep to the acre is. not suitable for closer settlement, whilst Run 45, which is carrying 1£ sheep to the acre is suitable. It is simply absurd nonsense to talk about ono run beiiig suiti-blo and another not. Every run in this district is suitable for cutting up into not smaller than 1500 acre blocks; but, Sir, your time for cutting them up has not yet arrived. You are just 21 years too soon. Une of the planks of your platform is limitation of area, or the prohibition of .aggregation of land. In the present case you have cast this to the four winds of heaven. Mr I l '. Hall is the owner, jvith others, of some thirteen thousand acres of freehold. This is .not enough so you give him another 4195 acres. My sou, tho lessee of Run 43, does not own ono single acre of land, and has only the loase of the run to depend on for his living. - He resides on his run and is a bona fide settler. The lessee of Run 42 may go to liis run once a year, and I question if he goes that often. It is truly said in Scripture: “For unto evervono -that hath shall bo given, and ho shall, have abundance ; hut from him that hath -not shall be taken away even that which ho hath.” Now, Sir, what you propose doing to the detriment of -these settlers, is appropriating tho unearned increment or unimproved value of those runs, and doing the present • lessees out of the interest of, say, £3 per acre for 21 years, which is theirs by every right and constitution of British law 7 . You propose letting these blocks to now tenants on the capital value, which in the case of Ruh 43 is £6 Iss per acre. As the lessee of this run -is offered £3 3s per aero for his improvements, you coolly want to steal from him £3 12s per acre, or the interest thereon. Now, Sir, if you could successfully carry this out with tlie 23 runs in tins district, it would moan the loss of interest on ' the sum of £276,000. What it w'ould amount to if applcd to tho whole of tlio runs taken up under tho 1885 Act in the Dominion, I cannot say, but quite a. millionpounds. , . , Another gross injustice which you, as Minister of Lands, have succeeded in accomplishing on thoso unfortunato ruh-holdeis is taking away ; their rights to convert their leases into a lease in perpetuity and a freeho-.d. if desired. In the Land Act, 1892, Clause 160, we find the ' following/, f ‘Any lessee of rural lands under this Art or apy Act may surreu-

tier his Tease and get a new lease, as a lease in perpetuity (this applies to small grazing runs) but in< your great liberal Land Act of 1907, what do we find? A surprise packet and a very comprehensive one. It is as follows: “The provisions of Section 160 of the principal act and of Section 15 of the Land Act Amendment Act, -1895, shall not apply to leases of small grazing runs.’ Now,-Sir, in your capacity as Minister of Lands I ask you was this not. hitting these lessees below the belt? I can call it nothing short of confiscation ,with the red flag of Socialism close in attendance. It penetrates the very vitals of a tenant’s right. You, Sir, talked about nailing your colors to the mast r on your Land Bill, and going down with it if not passed. You hauled them down, but now you have mn up a flag. It is the flag with the skull and cross-bones on it._ Ihe flag of the Pirate. It is the duty of every farmer in the. Dominion, be he large or small, to see that that flag is hauled clown-. Our decks are cleared for action, and if there is a. desire for honest and just administration, our guns should bo double shotted, and the masts of the pirate ship should be carried by the hoard. To the tenants under the lease in perpetuity (939 years) I would ask what security have they got that their rights will not he trampled on is in the case of the grazing run lessees? If the present administration can deprive them, of half of their term, what is to stop you taking their rights away and offering them a 33 or a 66 years lease. Now, Sir, in conclusion I would remind you of your own words when you said that every 18s in the £ of our exports came out of the land. Are you treating those who work the land fair ? I say -no ! You have already, by your own drastic legislation on land matters, driven one million pounds out of the country to develop Queensland: It is time you were pulled up before you carry things too far and blight the prospects and opportunities of the farmers in “God’s own Country.” I have the Honor to he, Your Obedient Servant, G. J. BLACK. Gisborne, Oct. IG.