SMALL GRAZING RUNS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2341, 6 November 1908, Page 6

SMALL GRAZING RUNS.

FURTHER CORR ESPONDENCE

The following letters have been handed to as, for publication, by Mr. It. Cl. Black: “Hon. Jas. Carroll. Dear Sir,— Following up voar assurances (given at fast night’s*public meeting, that you were willing to aid small grazing runholders to get fair justice, would you undertake to at once arrange with the Government to enquire and report whether lessees of small grazing runs under the Land Act, 1885, in this district are laboring under a bona fide belief that when they acquired their ■runs they were as a right entitled; to a second lease (unless the runs were sold at an increased rental)? Specifically enquire whether the tenants were misled under the following heads: (a) ißv the official land guides of the period; (b) by the construction placed on the Act by their legal advisers, and the supporting judgment of His Honor Mr. Justice Cooper, in Smith t. Advances to (Settlers Department; (c) and by the assurances hitherto given by the officials of the Lands Department? And if the report establishes a genuine grievance, and proves that the tenants have been misled, would you then do your best to secure the renewals of the leases for another 21 years? This is un absolutely fair request, and seems to he the best way of jointly and amicably deciding the matter.-7-We have the honor to be, yours respectfully, J. A. Caesar, William Bruce, J. C. Field. Thomas Todd, 11. G. Black, F. Hall, Marshall Bros.” The Hon. J. Carrofl sent the following reply : “Dear .Sir, —In reply to the letter 'of even date, signed by yourself and others, I have to state that any genuine grievance shown to exist on the lines set forth therein respecting the small grazing runs in the district, I shill do my best to try and get remedied in the direction asked. All along I have been in sympathy with the" holders of grazing funs', who -have been misled as to the provisions of the Act of 1885. —Yours faithfully, J. Carroll.”

RE SMALL GRAZING RUNS

[To _TUIO EIUTOII .]

Sir, —1 did not intend, when giving the other side of the grazing run question, to enter into any newspaper controversy with Mr Black. However, as Mr Black has made some grave misstatements, 1 must enlighten the public as to the truth of his assertions. Mr Black starts his letter with “fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” Who is the angel, _Mr Black or myself ? and who is the foolr 1 claim to be 1 the angel and leave it to the public to decide. Mr Black asks me to read clause 209 of the Land Act, and also the Land Guide for 1908. He must know that one clause does not always make an Act. If you read the clause that suits Mr. Black’s case you must also read the d'ause that suits the Government’s case. Mr Black’s clause reads: “And it shall be again leased for another 21 years,” but the part, omitted by Mr Black, and which the Govemjnient rely upon is, “If it is determined to again lease.” No doubt if it is, the tenant can claim the right of renewal. In Mr Black’s, case it was determined not to again lease Run 43 as a whole. With regird to Runs 43 and 42, Mr. Black says Run 43, his run. has never carried more than l-j sheep to the acre. Mr Black says he has 35 years experience. I have 30 years’ experience of sheep farming and am of opinion that if Mr Blacks run was subdivided into areas of about GOO acres the same as Wigan it would carry from 2) to 3 sheep to the acre all over. Wigan, before it was subdivided, was not carrying more than 1£ sheep an acre, and now is carrying 2% to 3 sheep per acre. Run 43, Hall’s, is not fit for cutting ■up, having no access or building sites with the exception of one at each end. Half this land is poor pumice, and had not some thousands of pounds been spent on it to clear the manuka and ferns, the country was only one sheep to the acre country. The former owners, the ones that took it up, unci the ones that had it afterwards, were all ruined and left the place without a penny. It was only when, Mr Hall put some ten thousand pounds into the place, and with good and careful management, it was made what it is. Now, if kept crushed it is from 11 to 2 sheep country. The nature of the country, soil, and access, is quite different from Mr .Black’s land it is not fit for cutting up for close settlement and Mr Black’s is. Mr Black speaks of Caesar s run as not being fit to cut up if Hall’s is not, and quotes Messrs Bart ram and Lewis as having advised it was not fit for cutting up. Mr Black, with characteristic generosity, omits the fact that, in any report, I said Caesar’s run can only be cut up on condition the Crown buy from Bloomfield Bros, the frontage to Caesar’s run, which gave the property a frontage to the main road of a mile and a half and two building sites. As Mr. Caesar said he wanted the run as a whole or none I advised the Board to buy the frontage and cut it up, otherwise return' it as a whole. . With regard to the carrying capacity of Caesar’s and Hall’s it is purely a matter of who spends the most money to obtain certain results. Casar’s land as a whole is the best 'and more suitable for cutting up. Hall’s run would require reading and the spending of £2OOO in making access ; and in cutting out 1200 acres, and 1 giving the public the best, I left the balance to he let as a run and without the cost of roading. Mr Black says he does not own the freehold. If he does not own the freehold he does not own the grazing run, yet dt is he that is .making all this noise. I will toll Mr Black what I did not tell him yesterday, and that is he not only has 400 acres of freehold, which he got in the purchase of his grazing run, but that he has "592" acres of freehold, and that he not only has 700 .acres of* 11 __42 years’ lease at about Gd per acre from the poor native®, but secured 1100 of the best land for the same price, all with liis grazing run at lid per acre rental. As to flip 900 acres offered Mr Black the Board were generous to offer him the 900 adjoining his freehold and, leasehold, as being mast suitable for him. The 900 acres, although steeper than the other, are just as good, the difference being in one the bush is down 10 to 15 years, the other the bush is down 4 ye. irs, and it is good 2 to 21sheep country if properly managed. In conclusion I should like to sav that iny opinion o| ths whole

don is that there, is hardship all round. The Government want . the land for the people if it is fit for cutting up. The people want the land. The tenants want the land also, if they can get it at 21- per cent on the capital value. That is to say, they want it at all .annual rental of 2s per acre, instead of at 5 per cent., which would be 4s per acre, as no second-class pastoral land can lie valued at more than £4 per acre unimproved value. Mv solution is that Parliament he asked, to give all their tenants a renewal of another 21 years under the optional system, when they could charge them 5 per cent instead of 21 on the unimproved value, and the tenan ts would be liable for all rates and taxes, which they are not at present! This I think would he satisfactory to aid parties and fair to all. In conclusion I must ask Mr Black, when replying to my criticisms, not to he personal, because he is suffering from hallucination, brought on by what, lie thinks is an injustice in the Land Act, gild to remember I did not anako the Act, hut simply attempted to carry it out as I found it. —I am, etc., lAN S. iSIMSON.