LIBERALS AND LAND

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2325, 5 December 1914, Page 9

LIBERALS AND LAND

.(To the Editor.) . Sir,—lf you had frankly admitted your mistako in representing that the inorease in tho number of occupied land holdings in the Dominion over one acre in .extent had decreased from an average of 1744 a year under the Ballance and Seddon Governments to an average of 787 .under the Ward Government, the public might have assumed it was an honest mistake, and certainly you would not have been troubled with this further letter from mo. But your attempt to cover up your mis-statement by_ saying that./ X nave "gone behind tho scenes" for my information and implying that some casual person has told me that five figures in the Year Book are wrong, compels me to repeat that if you care to apply to the Government Statistician or the Secretary of Lands, you can get proof of the absolute accuracy of my contention. Pardon me for nelieving that you have already, done bo, and that your footnote,to my letter is. intended meroly. to obscure the facts in words, s You still pretend to be tlnconvinced in regard to the aggregation of land You again quote the figures showing the'number of holdings over 1001 acres in extent, and say "they show, that under the Ward regime the big holdings in New Zealand increased in number in two years from SOIB to 5796." I will not insult your intelligence by thinking -you imagine these figures prove your ; case. Surely you understand they represent an aggregation' of settlers, not an aggregation of land. When the Ward . Government came into office in 1906 there were 4395 settlers occupying 27,438,418 acres of land, an average of 6261 acres for. each settler; in 1909 there were 5018 Bettiers occupying 27,641,857 acres, an average of 5508 acres; and in 1911 there were 5796 settlers occupying 28,951,468 acres, an average of 4995 acres. According to your argument, if you allow mo again to use a simple Illustration, when this ' vast area is occupied by 28,000 settlers it will be five times more aggregated than it is now. Let me quote the comment appearing in the Year Book for 1914 (prepared under the instructions of your own Government) on the figures referring to 'the aggregation of ' freeholds: "It would appear from the above," it runs, "that there has been a reduction 'in the total held in areas of 10,000 acres and over of 2,797,658 acres during the period 1889-1906, and a further reduction of 1,195,071 acres during the period 1906 to 1910, or a total reduction of 3,992,729 acres between 1889 to' 1910/ The average area held by owners of 10,000 acres and upwards shows a , steady, decrease since 1889." "• I repeat that the Ward .Government holds the record by a large margin for both the increase in the number of occupied holdings and the reduction in the area'of aggregated land. If this were not •so you could disprove my statement in a quarter of the space you have occupied inHrying to confuse the issue.—l am, etc.; ' ■ -. S. SAUNDERS., [It is very wrong of us no doubt to prefer the official figures published in the State records to our correspondent's personal investigations, but it hardly, warrants his impertinence in suggesting his belief that we had followed. his methods of procuring information and found the result unsatisfactory. Hβ states that the Ward Government holds the record by a large margin for both the increase in the number of occupied holdings and the reduction in the area of aggregated land. Wβ eay without hesitation or qualification that that assertion is contradicted by all the official State records; In proof of our tion we would refer anyone interested in the subjeot to the census tables for 1901, appendix o, table 1, page Ixi; the census tables for 1906, appendix D, table 1, Ixvii; and the census tables for 1911, appendix C, table 1, page xxii. These are the official returns of the census token in the years stated, and at the head of each of the tables is the following :—"Occupied land classified ■ according to size of holdings," and in the case of the 1911- return the words "and acreages are added." In parentheses follows 1 this remark: (This table deals with the full extent of occupied land, including Crown pastoral leases). The tables in question show the following census figures:— ■', , ■ : ' . Number . '■ ■ .. : ■ .of'- ,-.•', holdings! Increase. 1901 62,786 - 1906 69,942 7166 • 1911 ..: 73,876 3934 The Ward Government come into office in 1906, and ,during the census period of five years following the number of occupied holdings increased as stated by.us at the rate only of 787 a year. In the preceding five years, \that is to say, prior to the Ward Government coming into office, they increased at' the rate of/1433 a year, i The official census figures being unanswerable, our correspondent refuses to accept them, and then seeks to further confuse the issue by quoting from the Year Book of 1914 certain comments on figures relating to "freeholds" 'which he knows quite well we did not refer to, and which have nothing whatever to do with the question under discussion. It is Tether amusing to note that in his attempt to build up a case he has now been forced into the admission that •whereas in. 1909 only 27,641,857 acres were held in big estates two years Jater under. Wardist rule the , area held in hig estates had increased to 28,951,468 acres.], ' ■'■■, • ■ . , ■