ANOTHER LAND SCANDAL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8358, 19 February 1913, Page 6

ANOTHER LAND SCANDAL

The professed desire of the Massey Government to promote the close settlement of the land, to provide land for the landless, and to make “every man his own landlord,” is familiar to all. We mean the so-called Reformers’ •professions are familiar; their realisation is another question. As a matter of solid fact, there is a wide gulf between the party’s promises and its performances—a gulf that seems to be •widening every day, to the sacrifice of the public. We have before us evidence of a transaction in Crown land so startling that even people who realise the hollow nature of the policy of “Reform” must be amazed at the facts. It is an example of land being conveyed to an individual already possessing considerable land on his assurance to the department that he would sell the laud he was already possessed of. By a coincidence, Southland is again tho scene of this discreditable disclosure. Briefly, the position is that in a ballot for section 66, block 24, Invercargill Hundred, after one applicant Had been rejected as not being “landless,” Mr R. Wilson, who holds 390 acres, was allowed to go to tho ballot against Mr Thomas Horan, who has none. And Mr Wilson, the man of property, drew the lucky marble and got the land I As any man with a spark of grit would do, Mr Horan warmly protested. He wrote to the department. The reply was that Mr Wilson had stated in his application that he holds an education reserve of 19p acres, for which he pays a rental of £l9 a year, and also owns 200 acres of freehold valued at £2 5s au acre. These facts are clearly set out and confessed to in a letter signed by Mr John Strauchon, tho Under-Secretary for Lands. Yet Mr AVilson was allowed to compete (against -the landless Mr Horan. The official reason assigned for this- injustice is that the fortunate person had promised to dispose of his land and had “assured tho board that it was in the market”; that he wished to leave tho locality in which he was living and take up residence on section 66; that he is a practical man of life-long farming experience ; and that he has three sons living with him 1 Here are the Undersecretary’s exact words in a communication sent from Wellington to; Mr Horan: — Mr. B. Wilson stated in his application that he held an education reserve of 190 acres (rental £l9 per annum), and owned 200 acres of freehold, valued at £2 5s per acre. Mr Wilson stated-that it was his intention to dispose of this land, and ho assured the board that it was in the market, and that he' wished to leave the locality in which he was living, and take up his residence on section 66 in question. The . board, taking into consideration the tacts that Mr Wilson is a thoroughly practical man, with a lifetime of experience in farm work, and has three sons living with him, decided to allow him to go to ballot on condition that he undertook to divest himself of bis present iandThis left Mr AVilson and yourself in the ballot, and Mr AVilson .was successful. Mr Horan’s answer to this official explanation is that he also has three sons, and that if landless married men are to be invited to apply for Grown lands—which belong to the people—and are then to see a section going to one already possessing 390 acres of freehold and leasehold, then the “preference to landless applicants” supposed to be part of tho present system “is under the Massey Government only a sham.” Mr Horan’s case is plainly but temperately set out in a letter' addressed to the Minister of Lands, dated February 11th, and the circumstances of this unfortunate transaction are disclosed in correspondence published in the “Southland Daily Nows” of February 12th. We are not able to imagine what Mr Massey will have to say about this matter. For all wo know, ho may be absolutely bursting with merriment, and we shall possibly be politely told something by- Ministers or the land monopolists’ gazette about “mare’s nests.” But nevertheless tho spirit ot statute-law, if not the letter, is being grossly disregarded, and the intentions of the Legislature are contemptuously flouted and over-ruled by such an outrageous burlesque on settlement. The policy is no longer land for the landless. That is clear. The poor man is going to got no consideration from the present Government. That is also certain. AVherever it is possible to do so, the interests of people without influence, as well as of the general community, are 'to be impudently subordinated in favour of. the propertied - person. As for “settlement,” any true appreciation of the meaning of the word is naturally foreign to the party of broad acres and aggregation and accumulation. The doors are to be opened wide to the speculator till the price of land will become more than ever prohibitive and occupation or ownership a still closer privilege of the wealthy. A gross and glaring injustice has in this Invercargill Hundred deal been gratuitously offered to a landless man with a family of sons, representing the very class it is most desirable to assist. The “reform” ot the Massey Government is a bitter and a mockery.