The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published Every Tuesday, Thursday, AND Saturday Morning. Saturday, April 13, 1889.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 286, 13 April 1889, Page 2

The Gisborne Standard AND COOK COUNTY GAZETTE Published Every Tuesday, Thursday, AND Saturday Morning.

Saturday, April 13, 1889.

Be just and fear not; Let all the ends thou aim’st at be thy country's, Thy God's, and truth's.

HARBOR BOARD’S ENDOWMENT. After all the talk there has been over the Tauwhareparae Block, by the members of the Harbor Board, it is quite a novel contemplation to note that something has at last been definitely decided upon in the matter. There is certain to be a difference of opinion as to whether that decision is a wise one, and though the wearisome discussions which have evolved the decision do not throw much light on the subject, the disposal of the endowment in any form is a question of great interest to the ratepayers. We may as well at once dismiss the fads which some people hold in regard to the block, of cutting it up into a large number of small holdings, as baits for unfortunate settlers to launch themselves on the road to ruin. We do not want to see any of that sort of thing, nor is it to the interest of the district that any settlers, large or small, should risk failure on the block. Whoever takes a share in it we want to see him make a profit out of it —to make a profit on the combined influence of capital, energy, and good management, and that the rateB should have a proportionate ;. Half-starved settlers on ill-kept lands are an evil to be avoided ifpossible. It might have been better, if it were possible, to cut the block up into say six lots, but to attempt any further cutting up at present would defeat the object in view ; it might induce a certain class of “ settlement,” but that we are better without. We do not want to depreciate the value of the land, but anyone who knows anything of the “ breaking in ” of country of this nature must be aware of the difficulties to be surmounted, and the capital required to be expended. Therefore the suggested cutting up of the block in a large number of sections may be dismissed as hardly entitled to further consideration. Mr Bennett’s proposition was certainly, as Mr Clark said, the most businesslike idea of dealing with the block that had yet been made, but it does not follow that because the upset price has been made ijd per acre that a great deal more may not be obtained. Mr Chambers said that it would be better to hold back for two years, as then a better price would be obtained. By the proposed arrangement it will take over six months, and we do not think there should be any hurry for a month or two, because in the meantime wider publicity would be given to the intended lease, but shelving the matter for two or three years would not be a wise procedure. Mr Chambers further holds that it would be legislating for posterity—which appears to his mind to be foolhardiness — to let the block for thirty years, and then when it is all like a beautiful garden instead of a wilderness of bush and fern, to cut it up for small holders. We should think a twenty-one years’ lease would be far preferable, because by that time the holders would have all the improvements made, and ought to have sufficiently recouped themselves for their outlay, labor, and enterprise, but we do not see how it would be legislating for posterity to have the land settled now on the best terms possible. By the clauses of the lease there must at least be fifty hands employed for some time in felling bush and clearing off fern, grass seed must be bought in the district for the purpose of sowing, tracks must be made, etc., and every additional sheep or head of cattle put on the land must give labor in its ultimate disposal. Is the initiation of this kind of work legislating for posterity ? According to the terms of lease all this must be begun before the expenditure out of loan will have ceased, so that the sooner something is done with the land the better it will be for the ratepayers of the present, and posterity is not likely' to be a sufferer thereby. It would therefore be better to get something done with it as soon as possible, and though we are inclined to think that it would be better if the block were cut up into six lots, and perhaps with the reservation of two of those lots for future disposal, it is well that something should be done than for it to remain unproductive. If the land is advertised in a business-like manner, and the date of the closing of tenders made as widely known as possible, there is not much doubt that the upset price will be the full extent of the value realised. In fact we think the Committee appointed to attend to this part of the business has really the most important function to perform.