HATUMA SETTLERS.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 341, 15 February 1902, Page 4

HATUMA SETTLERS.

A UESPKHATK PLIGHT. Wellington, Thursday

The condition of the Hatuma settlers is attracting some attention locally. The Post m an editorial says : In a recent issue we published a letter from a well-informed correspondent reviewing the resumption and settlement of the Hatuma estate in the Hawke's bay district. The Crown tenants, it appears, have petitioned to have either, a rebate or reduction oi rent, owing to the bad season and high price they had paid for tiieir land. On tins point our correspondent wrote “ These settlers will have to get a reduction, or even a remittance of tiieir rent, to save them. If this is not done some of them are ruined. When tliis property was taken I wrote to the press endeavoring to show that this class oi' country was most unsuitable for close settlement, that at the price paid for it the losses on Pomohaka would be insignificant compared to what they will eventually lose over the Hatuma estate, and this has come about sooner than I expected.” It is not our present intention to discuss whether these selectors van or cannot succeed upon their holdings, btiL to point out that the Hatuma experience again emphasises the need ol two important amendments in the Lands for Settlement Act. That measure practically gives power to Hie Ministry of the day to resume estates at will, a power that should not be entrusted to any Government. We would amend the Act so that the resumption of private estates could only follow upon the recommendations of a competent boqrd of independent experts approved by a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Parliament. There could then be no possibility as now exists of the law being made an engine of oppression or a means of reward according to the will of the Minister for Lands for the time being. Then as to rents, it is manifestly improper that the same Minister should have the power to exact or remit such payments as lie may choose, a land board, safeguarded by statute from interference, should collect such rents, and forfeiture should follow upon default, the occupier lidding a tenant right in itis improvements. In the case of Lite Hatuma settlers, political influence will naturally be brought to bear upon the Government for the reduction of rents, and since these are computed on the cost of the land compliance will mean a continuous loss to tile State. If, on the other hand, it is later shown that the land cannot be made to pay as subdivided, it should not have been resumed for close .settlement at the price that was- paid. Moreover, the present tenants have a good case. I-lad the carriage of the business been conducted by au independent Land Board, made subject to the approval of Parliament, the Hatuma property would probably be today still in the possession of Mr Purvis Russell, who, according to our correspondent, lias suffered a loss of £2OOll a year by the compulsory taking of his estate. We have always supported the principle of compulsion as a last resort in tile taking of private estates for the purpose of close, settlement, but it is a power that, should only be exercised where the needs of the country are manifest, and then only after most careful and exhaustive enquiry by a tribunal absolutely removed from all suspicion of political or party bias. The Government should be deprived of the power to take estates or remit rents, and We hope that both these blots upon the Lands for Settlement Act may be soon effaced.