CORRESPONDENCE

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2149, 3 August 1907, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE

THE LAND BILL. To the Editor.. Sir, —By Ids letter which appeared in your columns on July 30 lai mer ’ apoears to have missed one or two v in.ewbat important points when discussing clause 6G of the Land I a»s Amendment Bill. Under this clause til3 owner of the land proposed to be compulsorily acquired is absolutely at the mercy of the Government valuations and Government valuers and has no right of appeal to an unbiassed Court, since not only are the valuers hut also the members of the Assessment Court nominees of the Government-. If he objects to bis valuations being too low we have instances such as that- of Air. G. P. Donnelly’s in Hawke’s Bay to show that bis objections may not be sustained by the Assessment Court. If he object to these valuations being too high we have numerous illustrations in our midst to show the utter futility in most instances of an appeal to the Court. This is not necessarily owing to the intended bias of the Court but rather to the fact, that the assessors are gentlemen nominated by the Government possibly because of their known leanings towards its policy or their lack of any but theoretical knowledge of the conditions which govern the farming community. Tlio man whose land is to be compulsorily acquired is thus placed in the position of one who sells bis property on the valuation of valuers appointed solely by the purchaser, a condition which is contrary to all our ideas of British fair play. . Under sub-section (A) of section 2 of this clause—if the value exceeds £50,000 21 per cent is to be added to the value, and under sub-section (e) if tlio value does not exceed £25,000 10 per cent is to be added. This seems illogical, for surely if tlio compulsory acquisition of bis estate is worth an additional ten per cent, as a solatium to the owner of a £25.000 property the same would apply to the owner of a £50,000 or £IOO, 000 property. The present system is much fairer but even this leaves much to be desired because a Judge of the Supreme Court is not in many instances ail authority oil land values. This was pointed out by—l think—Judge Prendergast in tho Hatnma case, where, lie stated that if the weight of evidence on both sides was equal, there was nothing left for a Judge to do in the absence of technical knowledge but split the difference. That is to say, if the Gc-veriT-1 ment valuers assesed the value at £o per acre and the owner’s witnesses held that it- was worth £lO his judgment must be for £7 10 per acre white the land might really only lie worth £5 or £6 per acre. It, seems to me that it would lie fairer if each side appointed an Arbitrator and the two Arbitrators appointed a referee. I am etc. PRO PATIIIA.