15

I.—sb.

C. R. POLLEN.]

further. As I said, the Act is administered by the Minister of Lands, and he recommends the Governor to sign Proclamations. I presume that is the procedure. 104. The rescission of your resolution that was on the minutes recommending that this section should be offered on renew able lease—the rescission was adopted as a matter of course: there was no discussion about still adhering to your decision? —No. 105. You took it that the notice that came down from Wellington was final in respect to dealing with this piece of land? —Yes. 106. Mr. Mac Donald.] In regard to offering this section for sale, the lease could have been offered by auction, could it not? —I believe we could do so, but it is a very unusual thing to do. 107. I have here Mr. Brodrick's report for 1912 regarding lands for disposal in the Canterbury District, and it shows several instances of land being offered for lease by public tender, an upset price being fixed. So that evidently it has been the habit of the Canterbury Land Board to submit leasehold land at public auction at an upset rental? —But I might point this out: the section you are inquiring about is under the Cheviot Act, and under that Act there are only three tenures —namely, renewable lease, cash, and lease as grazing-farms. 108. Hon. Mr. Massey.] Who directed the Rangers to report on this block?—l think I did. - 109. Was your attention called to the fact that the lease had expired?— Unfortunately, the commencement of the proceedings took place before my time; so 1 cannot say what originally started it. 110. Is the land unoccupied at present?— Yes. 111. How long has it been unoccupied?— Since the lease was terminated, 1 think. 112. That is to say, since the beginning of this year?— Yes. 113. Was it after the beginning of the year that the Rangers were called upon to report?— Yes, I think it was about March. 114. Following up a point referred to by Mr. Forbes, the Canterbury Land Hoard, presided over by yourself, of course, preferred, as you say, renewable lease to a year-to-year tenure or to the shorter tenure under which reserves may be held —seven or ten years. Was there any feeling expressed by the Board as between the renewable lease and the decision of the heads of the Department to offer the land for disposal by auction?—No, there was no formal discussion at all. The letter w-as read, and the former resolution had to be rescinded, to make it come in. 115. It was rescinded? —Yes. 116. Without objection?— Yes. 117. You know that lands disposed of for cash under the Cheviot Estate Disposition Act are parted with on very easy terms to the new settler?—l can tell you what the terms are: a quarter down, a quarter in thirty days, and the remaining half in five years, interest being at 5 per cent.; or one can pay a quarter down and the rest in thirty days. 118. Supposing the land was worth £12 an acre, and that it was possible for a man to have purchased it at your valuation; 7 acres at £12 an acre would be £84. He would have been called upon to pay, say, £42 within a certain period?— Yes, half within thirty days. 119. Then the remaining £42 could have remained at 5 per cent, for five years?— Yes. 120. Do you not think those are particularly good terms? —Yes. 121. Any small man could take advantage of them?— Yes. 122. Mr. Forbes.] It was a slightly different Board that considered the decision of the Minister to sell for cash as compared with the Board that was dealing with the matter before? — Yes, there was one new member, who took no part in the discussion. 123. There was no discussion, you say?— No. 124. It was simply unanimously agreed to without discussion? —Yes. 125. Mr. Witty.] If you sold this land one-quarter would have to be paid down, would it not?— Yes. 126. And a quarter within thirty days?— Yes. 127. That is 50 per cent, of the purchase-money?— Yes. 128. Would those pc considered easy terms?— Yes, in comparison with the ordinary cash sales, when one has to pay one-quarter down and the rest in thirty days. 129. Supposing a man is buying outside, it is possible for him to have to pay only 15 per cent, down, the balance remaining at 5 per cent.? —That is a matter of opinion." These terms for cash are certainly easier than the ordinary cash terms under the Land Act. 130. But they are harder terms than a man would get land on outside? —I have nothing to do with that. You get all sorts of terms outside. 131. You recommended—or the Land Board did —that this land should be leased?— Yes. 132. And the Board rescinded that resolution on receiving a letter from Wellington? Yes. 133. If the land is sold, may it not go into a larger estate and so bar settlement?—l do not know. It might, I suppose. 134. If it were leased you would be certain that you would be getting an occupier? Yes he would have to reside. 135. If the land is sold for cash you are not sure of getting one?—No; there is no restriction. 136. No restriction as to residence? —No. 137. Would you consider cash or settlement the more beneficial—that is, cash for the land or having a settler on it? —Having a settler on it in this particular case. We proposed to lease the land on renewable lease. 138. At Hornby and other places 5-acre sections have been disposed of within the last few years, have they not? —Yes. Those are on renewable lease under the Land for Settlements Act. 139. If some one under you knew a property, and the Board knew it, and they recommended you to take a certain course, without knowing the land you would not veto their decision would you?—lt would depend. I might and I might not. I might require further information.