Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 15 August 1923, Page 2

Fumnnit particulars published to-day in regard to the soldier settlers in AVostlnnd, hear on the previous .statement- that the State loss in this province will he inconsiderable. The national loss to the Dominion as a whole is estimated at two millions, according io .Mr Massey’s statement, lmt AVestland can be responsible only for a fraction of that sum. We know, of course, that rushing the soldiers on to the land created it-boom in land values, on top of which dairying and stock produce was yielding high prices. With tile drop in prices and the end of the boom, the value of the land depreciated. It was another example of supply and demand. Experience is generally dearly bought- when the two factors just referred to are ignored, and that, was the experience of many of the soldier settlers. While it is recorded that the State is involved in a loss of some millions, it must not bo forgotten that many of the men who failed on the land, lost their all. In every rf so naturally they put up a gnllir.t Pghtt But their own resources were not equal to the battle with fat tug markets and depreciating assets. Their credit suffered accordingly* and they went under.

TnK particulars of the report on soldier .settlers in AA'estland. published today, contains a sympathetic reference to the position, and as the loss hero cannot he substantial in any case, there is all the more reason why the sympathy to help the men pull through should !>c ns practical as possible. Many of the men aro overburdened by second mortgages, and there should bo some co-operative action as between the Fecond mortgagee and the State to lessen the burden of the soldier settler. The settler is not usually a ready business man or financier, and the State w ith its plethora of officials should conic to the aid of the settler, with advice

and direction as to how best meet his difficulties of pressing finance. The report at one stage very properly remarks:—“lt would be better for the State to make some sacrifice in preference to realising.” That would be practical sympathy, for at least a good and worthy settler would be saved to the country, and by realising, there is no certainty in a forced sale that the State would come out of the bargain

at all handsomely. Indeed, in going to such a length, a loss would result most probably.

There is th© very practical suggestion in tho report just referred to to help tho soldier settler where necessary by remission or suspension or postponement of payment accruing. These deferred payments should not bo capitalised, as thoreby a heavier yoke still would bo placed upon tho struggling settler. As is remarked in the report each case has its own peculiar features. Each case has to be judged on its merits, and there will bo nothing amiss in giving tho Land Board discretionary power in dealing with these cases. Tho Board lias shown sympathy all along, and being charged with inside information as to the merits of every case-, is best qualified of all to deal with the problem. The whole trend of tho report (as of the discussion in Parliament) was to deal fairly with soldier settlers. If the men can bo kept on tho land as permanent producers, it will bo best for ihe State in the long run. The State will derive much in indirect benefit as a set off to any monetary loss appearing on the surface now, and the country will be well satisfied if tho authorities nnd the officials generally give the. soldier settler even- opportunity to pull through n.s comfortably as possible.