THE OTHER SIDE OF THE QUESTION ON THE S.G.R.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2339, 4 November 1908, Page 6

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE QUESTION ON THE S.G.R.

(To the Editor.]

Sir, —I should wish to put before your readers, with your permission, what I consider the true position of the Small Grazing Run Question. So much has been written for some time past by Mr Black on this /question that a little light as to the other side of this question may not be taken amiss. Now, in the first place who is Mr Black? —a land speculator who came here some years ago and purchased in various parts of Poverty Bay properties of considerable value, and because a property secured by his eon, he thinks, wilu turn out a poor speculation, making a possible loss of a thousand pounds, or even two, he attacks people connected with the Crown, and writes silly letters to the papers, and poses as one who has been unfairly dealt with by the Government. Now 1, person*ally, have nothing to gain by advocating the position taken up by the Government on this matter, as I consider myself aggrieved by being asked to go to Dunedin, and as a result, resigned my position in the public service. At the same time I should like the public to know the actual facts of tills case. Mr Adand Hood (the former owner of this small grazing run) acquired, with others, their respective runs under the 1885 Act, some 21 years ago, at a rental of 3d to 4d per acre per annum. Time went on, roads and bridges were made, settlement advanced, and. the once back-block grazing runs became valuable properties, but at whose expense? Not solely the tenants of these 'runs, who, under the above quoted Act, 'were not liable for rates or taxes, but their wealth increased, while their neighbours, the poor freeholders were paying hundreds of pounds per annum in rates and taxes and interest, on land of equal quality, or 2s per acre, to-make roads and bridges to the 1885 Grazing Run Holders’ properties. Again, as the Act distinctly states “if it ‘is determined to lease, etc, etc.,” the Crown on the advice of their officers, and recommendation of the Land Board of the Distridt, determined - they would not lease this small grazing •run; but preferred to out it up and give it to the public in small areas, at 5 per cent, on the capital l value, which is actually worth about 4s per acre .rental. But the tenant has been paying only 3d to 4d per acre for it; and in this case it is one of the best of the pastoral properties in Poverty Bay. And while the small grazing run holder grows richer and richer at a< peppercorn rental on liis large areas, the Government on the other hand, to satisfy the public, has to purchase land not as good for close settlement, and give from £8 10s to £lO 10s per acre for it, while by exercising their undoubted -rights, piot to lease the people’s inheritance, they could put the same land into the market for £6 per acre. In other words, the same class of land the settler is now paying 8s Od, 9s, 10s, and 11s, per acre for, could he leased for 6s to 7s per acre, and further, instead of the Crown paying £8 to £ll per acre cash for lands for closer settlement. they would only have to pay for the improvements at- the time of resumption of the grazing runs, which, the outside would amount to £3

per acre. Take M* Black’s ca.se. He and his. soil purchased freehold aud_ leasehold land. lie finds the leasehold tenure not as good, as he thought it was. Whose fault is that? Why did they' not buy 'all freehold.? - Or is it because they took the chance, knowing they were only paying 3d per acre for land that is worth 4s to 5s per aore unimproved, risking the chance, at the expiration of the lease, of getting another lease, and at a rental, perhaps, which if at 2-i per cent on its unimproved value, must necessarily be only half of what it was really worth, and clear of rates and taxes besides. Unfortunately for Mr Black-" the small grassing run is one of the best in the district, “and it was determined not to again lease as a whole.” Mr Black was treated, however, very kindly and generously. Although all his land was lit for closer settlement, it was decided, as. Mr Black had 400 acres freehold with all the buildings erected thereon, , and also had another long lease of 700 acres, both of which areas adjoined this particular grazing run, the Land Board very generously offered to give Mr Black 900 acres of Crown land out of the grazing run, so as to bring Mr BTack’s total area up to 2000 acres, thereby giving him a preference of an area of 900 acres of the best land. And yet Mr Black cries out about injustice. Mr Black has simpy made a bad spec. Unfortunately for him lie bought a run which'has become fit for closer settlement, instead of buying one which was not fit, and. he cannot get a renewal of the whole of it. In any case his loss is small. He may make £3* an acre goodwill out of the 900 acres, which is £2700, and. he had the run four years at 3d per acre per annum, free also of all rates and taxes, and I take it, cleared, a profit of about £6OOO, and when you add the £B7OO, plus what lie will get from the Government for his improvements. and take off the value of his freehold and all the buildings erected thereon, worth as a whole £4OOO, and which he still retains, I think Mr Black will get back all he has risked in his purchase of the goodwill from Air Hood. That Mr Black missed making say, £15,000, out of the people’s estate in not. getting a renewal of his lease, it goes without saying, is bad luck. —I am, etc., ’ lAN SIMSON SIMSON.