LAND AGGREGATION

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2937, 24 November 1916, Page 8

LAND AGGREGATION

-' FURTHER LEGISLATION ' ;■■ ,«* REQUESTED. "At the Conference of Chambers of Commerce yesterday, Mr. A'. M'Nicol (Dan■nevirke) moved:—"That the attention'of the Government be .drawn to the large extent to which the aggregation of "fanning lands is reducing tho population in jnany_ country districts, a reduction highly, inimical to the interests of the State, ■ and that it be urged to pass, and enforce Jegislation as early as possible, to present the aggregation in one holding of separate farms where each original farm js„of sufficient area to provide adequate weans of livelihood, for one farmer and his family." . . ;Mr. M'Sficol said he was aware of aii instance in which an area of land formerly held by eighty people was now held •by forty-two, and the number of children attending the school had fallen'from between eighty and ninety- to forty or fifty. It seemed that while some of the newer blocks were being cut up, older lands were being reaggregated. Mr. G. J. Anderson (Gore) seconded •the motion. He said lie knew the evils of-land aggregation, but he did not think itj-was.now occurring to any great extent. Recently legislation had had a good effect; even the threat of it .had in-some cases prevented aggregation. Small holdings were best for the State. •' : Mr. R. L. Paterson (Napier) said that on the East Coast last year one very wealthy man purchased 1000 acres, which •we're then being worked by three families. Last year there' were twentyfour persons on that land; now there are two. Mr. W. Dobson (Dannevirke) ' gave an instance where a bachelor farmer now owned what was once twenty farms. He eaid some counties were decreasing in population'. A delegate remarked that it might be that farmers ,ivere selling their land on account of their sons having gone to the •war. Mr. J.. B. Richards (Stratford) moved as.an amendment: "That, conference is of opinion 'undue aggregation of farming-land is inimical to the welfare of tbe Dominion, and that further legislation should be passed as soon as possible, to prevent same." Mr.. J. .G, .' Harkness ' (Wellington) ' seconded. He said our present legislation could not prevent aggregation - of < freehold land. ..->.' Mr. H.'Tolley (Feilding) said there was tomething hypocritical about the motion. If the motion was passed what was there to prevent a delegate moving at It would be of very little u6e to us if ■ our advertising did not 6tate facts.', We advertise to reach everybody interested in HOME SEPARATED CREAM. It is impossible for u3 to v try and find you in any other way. If the DAIRY. FARMER reads this ad. and has cream • for sale just remejnber that we are buyers, and are always willing to give him a square and honest deal. We' claim -to have one hundred and fifty satisfied suppliers, and hope to get another hundred before long.. Write us for further particulars,, and we shall reply promptly. Afterwards we hope • yon will consign your cream to . MAORILAND DAIRY CO.', LTD., St. John's Station—Advt. "

the next conference to restrict large businesses? \ A delegate: So they should. Mr. M'Nicol withdrew the motion, and the amendment was carried.