The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, DEC. 4, 1905. EAST COAST TRUST BOARD.

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1618, 4 December 1905, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, DEC. 4, 1905. EAST COAST TRUST BOARD.

In a letter from the Seoretary of the East Coast Native Trust Lands Board, which appears in another column, the Board puts before the public a clear and concise statement of the circumstances attending the inception and appointment of the Board, of tbe objects for which it was set up, and of the result of its operations. The publioa lion of the letter is opportune, as notwithstanding the magnitude of the interests dealt with by the Board, it is doubtfal whether the general public have had any trne conception of the duties of the Board or of the work it has done, and

profiting by this want of knowledge attempts have been made to draw tbe Board into the turmoil of po'itical warfare, to oast underserved aspersions on its members, and to belittle the work it has accomplished. That suok attempts should have been made is to be deplored. The appointments, though made by the Governor, were not politioal, and rightly sO. Tbe persons whose wishes should be consulted in such cases, where private property is concerned, are the ! owners and others directly interested in , the property. That course was taken in '

this instance, and when .the personnel o the Board had been agreed upon by thi Bank and the.-owners, it only remained foj the Government to see that tbe peraom proposed to be -appointed were suitable for' the position, and then for tbe Governor to formally make the appointments. Then why all these attacks on the Board, and indireotly upon tbe Government, by politicians eager to catoh votes ? Who can gainsay the fact that the Board has amply justified its existence, that it has evolved order out of chaos, that it has effee'ed a splendid realisation which has freed the huge estate from debt and has opened up vast tracts for European settlement ? A few of the Board’d transactions haye been taken exception to. By whom ? By tbe beneficiaries ? No; by political candidates who try to strike at tbe Native. Minister through the Board. The Board’s critics say that the Board has favored the aggregation of 'arge estates. But what was tbe Board’s duty? Clearly to obtain the best financial results possible. But is there any foundation for the assertion ? In regard

to taefa of the blocks tbo question of subdivision was carefully considered by the I Board, and the sale plans of Paremata, Mangaheia, Matawhero, and Tubora wore subdivided into sections none of which can be said lo be unduly Ja-ge, and the . Uaugapoike lands also have been leased in suitable areas. Other blocks have been sold lotact, but we strongly doubt whfthrr any of them are suitable for subdivision except Pakowhai, and that property was offered to the Land Purchase Department. The Department, however, thought the Board’s idea of value too high, and the . negotiations therefore fell through. That 1 the Board was in the right iB shown by 1 the fact that at auction the property 1 fetched the reserve price. In it 3 letter the * Board simply claims credit for its success- 6 ful administration, and in this every fair- r minded man willagree. ®