IMPROVED FARM SETTLEMENTS

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 357, 3 May 1911, Page 3

IMPROVED FARM SETTLEMENTS

To The Editor. Sir, —In looking over your issue of the 12th inst., I was rather surprised at the caustic remarks of the Commissioner and members of the Auckland Board in dealing with the very modest request of the settlers of the Rangitoto No. 2. To put it mildly, it was rather high-handed, and reminds one very forcibly of the systems of Irish landlordism prevalent in Ireland in years gone by. To make matters worse they seem to put all settlers under the Improved Farm System on the same basis, as being spoon-fed, lost to all independence, failures, etc. Well, I for one, as an improved farm settler (but not under the- Auckland Land Board, thank Heaven) resent sucii treatment, and for a stare I would remind this Commissioner that he holds a good fat billet, and I suppose those very settlers whom he tries to belittle and despise, are factors in keeping him there; and being devoid of sympathy for them, it would be a step in the right direction if the powers that be put somebody in his place who would be at least impartial. The Government certainly advance £2 per acre up to £l5O for improving this class of holding, but the Auckland Land Board seem to forget that in the majority of cases it takes from £3 to £4 to improve it, especially the fern or manukau country. In the majority of cases those settlers have wives and families to keep, and if the Auckland Land Board think that a settler can in eighteen months improve this class of country to the extent of keeping the latter and paying rent, they are much mistaken. Neither the settler of forty years ago, nor the settler of to-day could do it without a much longer balance to his credit, than the pitiful mite doled out to him by the Lands Department, after he pays for wire, seed, and probably wire-netting—he may buy salt with it, "Ah liae ma doots aboot the parridge." Then he has to set to work to keep himself, wife and family, and to do so it will cost him double or very nearly so, compared with forty years ago. When, the £l5O is cut out he has to do the best he can. He won't get his lease for a term of five years; this in itself keeps him from financing for himself. It is a system which says "We'll keep you up to £l5O for two years, with £SO towards building a house, after that for the next three years do the best you can, but we'll see you get no more till after the expiration of that period." This help given to settlers, is not a special donation or a charitable aid advance, it is tacked on to the land and has to be paid back, so I fail to see where the spoonfeeding comes in. Well might MiHarris ask where settlers proposed to raise their cows for milking next year. Similarly situated, he might find it rather a conundrum to answer. If the Auckland Land Board recommended thac those settlers get a remission of rent for a couple of years, to enable them to get on their feet, or grant them their leases to enable them to finance for themselves, or still better to try to get them a further loan of say £IOO to buy cows with, they would be showing not only sympathy, but good common sense. It would mean an independence for those settlers after a few more years, and would be money well spent by the State. Instead of the Improved Farm Settlements being the failure that this body seems to make

it out to be, it is the grandest system 1 ever brought forward by any govern- | merit, but it has a few weaknesses ; which could easily be remedied, and : wants to be run, not by a crowd like • the Auckland Board, but by men with practical common-sense, a little more insight into the wants of settlers, and ; last but not least, a little sympathy j for those struggling under their con- | trol.—l am, etc., j IMPROVED FARM SETTLER. j Te Mapara, April 20th. j