SMALL GRAZING RUNS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2342, 7 November 1908, Page 3

SMALL GRAZING RUNS.

[To the Editor.] Sir,—Mr. Siinson has evidently not had enough to convince him that he is wrong, iso like “Oliver Twist” he returns for more. He says, “As Mr. Black has made grave misstatements I must enlighten the public as to the truth of his assertions.” Well, Sir, I defy Mr. Simson to point me out one misstatement I have made, and mow I will point out to Mr. Simson many misstatements ho has made. The' .first one is (referring to lessee of run 43) “Mr. Black says he does not own the freehold. If he does not own the freehold he does not own the grazing run, yet it is he that is making all the noise.” If Mr. Simeon will look up my better of yesterday he will find the following:— “The lessee of S.G.R. 43, R, G. Black, has* not got 400 acres of freehold, nor is he the lessee of 700 acres with a long lease.” Those are facts and I defy Mr. Simson to dispute them. Further he says, “I will tell Mr, Black what I did not tell him yesterday, and that is he not only has 400 acres of freehold which he got in the purchase of his grazing run, but that he has 592 acres of freehold, and that he not only has 700 acres of a 42 years’ lease at about 6d per acre from the poor natives but secured 1100 acres of the best land for the same price, all with his grazing run at lid per acre rental.” That anyone connected with the Land Department of the Dominion should be so ignorant and make such wild, untruthful statements surprises me not a little. If you will add up these figures you will get a total of 2792 acres. Such an area is not in existence, and, as I said yesterday, the only property It. G. Black has got is run 43, of which Mr. Simson, the Board, and the Government are trying to deprive him. I think I exposed Mr. Simson quite enough over the 900 acre block offered the lessee, but he returns to the charge and says it is as good as the other, only steeper, and would carry 2 to 2R sheep—if properly managed. Now, iSir, if this is meant to be a slur on the management of the lessee I must take exception to it. My son, since leaving Lincoln College some eight years ago, has worked and managed sheep properties in the South Island, and ho has forgotten more than ever Mr. (Simson knew as regards sheep farming. To return to the renewal clause, Mr. Simsou says, “Mr. Black’s clause reads:—‘And it shall be again leased for another 21 years,’ but the part omitted by Mr. Black, and which the Government rely upon is, ‘if it is determined to again leas>e.’ No doubt it is onfy the tenant can claim the right of renewal.” Now, Sir. does Mr. Simson make out that the Government are not going to lease it again? -I say that is just what they are trying W do, without offering the renewal to the present lessee. This is just the point wc are lighting for and we say they must first offer it to present lessee before offering it- to anyone else. Mr. Simson then sets himself up to give an opinion on the whole question, and says there lis hardship all round. "What he means by this I don’t know. The only hardship I can recognise is to the existing lessees. He says the tenants want it at 2£ per cent on the capital value. He is wrong there, they want ■it at 2| per cent on. the unimproved value. The improvements are theirs until they are paid for. He would further suggest that Parliament ho asked to give all these tenants a renewal of another 21 years on the optional system, when they could charge them 5 per cent interest instead of 2.} per cent, on the unimproved value, and the tenants would* be liable for all rates and taxes which they are not at present. This I think would be satisfactory to all parties and fair to all.” Well, Sir, allow me to differ with Mr. Simson in his opinion. These runs were let under certain conditions; and' a contract made with the tenants, and it must be carried out to the letter. The contract is that on the revaluation for the second term (see Clause 209, Section B, Act 1885): “The 'rental shall be 2) per centum of the value of the fee simple as fixed, less the value of improvements by- the said valuation.” Is it likely these tenants are going to agree to have their rents doubled on them as proposed by Mr Simson, which he calls “satisfactory to all parties and fair to af.L” ? He should have added “except the tenants.” Mr. Simson, in conclusion, asks me not to be personal when replying to. his criticisms and says I am suffering from hallucinations, and •he did not make the Act, but is only carrying at out as he finds it. This is just what he is not doing. He wants the Government to determine to lease it to someone else without giving the present lessee the refusal which the Act provides for. I dispute the right of any Crown Lands Ranger having “the power” to suggest to the Land Board what shall he done with any particil’ar run. His duties end when he reports on the description of the property, and where or how he ussum'es to have the right to dictate to a Land Board how much. or how. little any lessee shall get, is more than I can understand. This I pointed: out in a conversation I diadi with the Minister of Lands. I said to him it is absurd that a nonentity should be allowed to dictate to a Land Board matters jin, connection with these runs involving the loss of Thousands of pounds. Mr Simson claims to he an angel'—if so I think he must have left his wings in Southland. I don’t think any of the Crown tenants have seen them on, him when he has been flying about the country, I am.

(To the Editor.] ' ' iSir, —Can you explain to -me how tlie oivner of run 42 can legalfy hold it ? for tlie Land Act 1885 has the following clause in it: Clause-200. Disqualified Occupiers: “No person shall he capable of becoming- ia. lessee who owns either freehold land, or land held by, lease' or license of any kind whatever from the Crown whereby such person, either by himself or jointly with other ■pefsons or persons would become the owner or occupier of lands anywhere in the colony which, taken together with the land comprised in the run for which he is a bidder or applicant, would in area fiOQQ acres.” .

Will Mr. Carroll got an Enabling Bill passed to got over the difficulty, as I >am told Mr. Hall owns over twice the limit. —I am etc., J.T.W.