THE WAIMATA SECTION.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2396, 11 January 1909, Page 5

THE WAIMATA SECTION.

DISCUSSION IN TRADES COUNCIL

At a meeting of the local Trades and Labor Council on .Saturday evening, a letter was received from a- disappointed applicant for the Waimata section. He stated: “Myself along with two others made applications in the belief that landless applicants would get the preference, but we were all thrown out simply because we had; not sufficient capital. One of us had £350. another £2OO, and the other £l2O. Now this money was all ottr own; none of it borrowed. TTe did not even know we would have to stand for a financial examination, or we would have been better prepared. One of the judges told the others that it was ut>t legal to enquire into the financial position of the applicants, it- was only a resolution of the Board. Now I think it is the duty of your Council in the interests of the working men to take this matter up and see that the land laws are administered in the way the Legislature intended they should be, and not in a spirit of hostility to the workers, as I noticed on tht day of the ballot out of. I think, about- 160 applicants, only about 80 were allowed to ballot-, and these chiefly large land-owners and wealthy shopkeepers, and the working man was conspicuous by his absence.” Mr. Maddison said on the face of it(t- seemed hard to the applicant-, but the Board was simply protecting would-be settlers against themselves. TVhat chance did a man have on a bush section without sufficient capital He would be simply preparing himself for the Bankruptcy Court. The question of financial examination was simple determined by the Board. Under the Lands for Settlements Act examination of applicants was compulsory, while in land offered under other Acts the Board could compel examination by resolution. This had been done in the TVaimata section. With regard to other statements made in the letter, lie knew of large land-owners being thrown out on account of their already large holdings, and in one case a land-owner applied for the section on behalf of his children, but when it was found that his eldest w-as only ten years of age he was compelled "to stand, aside. He thought the Board was doing its best for the settlement- of the land. Mr. Old stated that some years back he had taken up land, but had since wished 'fchnt the Board had tnade a financial examination, for his capital had been utterly insufficient, and he had lost all he had. He approved of examinations for the purpose or protecting the would-be settlers. Mr. J. H. Hall thought it peculiar that examinations had been made without due public notification being given. , , , .. , Mr. T. B. Sweet related the history of the section, its first and second withdrawals. The section had been considered a veritable bonanza., and previous to its second withdrawal applications were in for it from almost everv person in the town. The drawing of the section was considered to piit £ISOO in the lucky one’s pocket, and lie had heard of one person promising £BO to twenty different persons if they drew the section, for him. However, all calculations had been upset by its withdrawal. The Board had since raised the rental, and imposed conditions, and the consequence was that the speculative element had been eliminated. The Board had done its best for bona fide settlement, _ and was right in demanding examinations. He did not- see what action the Council could take in the matter but thought the letter should simply be received. . _ A motion that the letter be laid on the table was proposed and adopted.