West Coast Lessees.

Opunake Times, Volume III, Issue 128, 24 September 1895, Page 3

West Coast Lessees.

Wo have received from Mr McGuire, M.H.R., a copy of the evidence taken before the Waste Lands Committee when the lessees delegates were exexamined, and the petition was under consideration. Mr McGuire was the first witness called ; and entered very fully ihto the position. In treating of the demand of the Trustee for payment of the value of improvements in excess of £5 per acre he said Mr Ballance informed him that it was not the policy of the Government to prevent people from making improvements, and that legislation was contemplated in the direction of securing improvements to those who made them. He was of opinion that new legislation should take place which would place lessees under old leases on a similar footing to those with new leases. He also objected to the valuer who had been appointed. In his opinion the Trustee’s actions were solely in the interests of the natives, but through want of knowledge they were not conducive to the best interests of the Maori owners, and his administration was proving a miserable failure. The Trustee pretends to be acting under an Act of Parliament, but he was doing a lot of mischief. It would, in his opinion, be a great benefit to both Europeans and natives to have the management of these reserves transferred to the Land Board. The Chairman of Committee asked with’regard to valuation —

40. Had the settlers no right of appeal against this valuation ? —No. The Trustee would not listen to an appeal. The Trustee takes up the position that when he fixes the rent it cannot be altered. 41. You mean to tell the committee that the settlers had to accept the valuations placed on these lands without any right of appeal ?- -Yes ; the valuation was sent down and the Trustee fixed it, and after it was fixed meetings were called of Europeans and natives to fix the value, but the meeting was a mere farce, as the Trustee had already fixed the rent, and would not move.

42. Do you mean that the settlers bad no right of appeal—no opportunity of appeal against these valuations?—There was a meeting called at the settlers’ expense, but the amount of the valuation was fixed prior to that meeting being held. 43. Did the Public Trustee give them the right to appeal or to lodge an appeal against this man’s valuations ?—There was no right of appeal gfven them by the Trustee ; this is one of the reasons why we are asking for an amendment to the Act. 44. You have stated in answer to Mr Meredith that all the improvements over £5 per acre were confiscated ?—Yes.

45. I understand from your evidence that that was in accordance with the lease ? —You must understand that the leases had not expired when they came under the amended Act of 1892 ; they had in some instances 21 years to run. At the end of the proper term their improvements would not, in most cases, have exceeded £5 per acre. They had just made their improvements ; but in 21 years’ time they would have depreciated in value very considerably, and some of them might have disappeared altogether. 46. So for as the administration of the Public Trustee is concerned, has he administered these lands in accordance with the present law ? —No. He has strained the law in many ways in my opinion ; he has got discretionary power, which ho has not used to the advantage of either of the parties concerned.

47. In reference to this refusal of the Trustee to pay rates to local bodies, have any of the local bodies sued the Trustee ?—I have not heard of any of the local bodies going to law with the Trustee. 48. One test case would have shown whether the law could have compelled the Trustee to pay or not ?—I am not aware that there has been any test case ; but, of course, I have been away for some time.

49. As far as you know, no local bodies have taken any action ?—I am not aware of any local body having taken action.

Mr Elwin, when examined, went into the circumstances concerning his case, and those of Messrs McCullura, Eothery, Luston, and Leedom, the particulars of which our readers are already acquainted with. In reply to Mr Eeeves he said he considered the preliminary expenses in applying for a new lease were excessive ; that the Trustee put the cart before the horse in fixing the valuation before the meeting took place ; that there was no power to compel the eradication of noxious weeds ; that the general burden of complaint was not that the Trustee breaks the law, but that his discretionary power is used in a way hurtful to the settlers and not advantageous to the natives ; that the whole of the administration should be brought under the Land Board and under the Land Act.

Mr Hogg asked if the petitioners could secure a revaluation and consequent reduction of rent Avould their object be served ? Mr Ehvin replied it Avould not, as they asked to be placed under the Laud Board.

Mr W. J. Wells, in giving evidence, said he considered the Trustee’s valuer knew as much about the value of land as the moon did. He and the native valuer accompanying him undervalued the whole of the improvements, Avhich, of course, increased the unimproved value of the land. He then introduced the question of fencing, and quoted a letter from Mr C. Mcllardie, Opunake, Avho had applied to the Trustee to pay half cost of fencing, but could get no satisfaction from the Trustee. W T hat the 270 petitioners, whom they represented, Avanted was that they should be placed under the administration of the Land Board of

the province, when they would le dealing with practical men, a local body on the spot, and they would receive justice. Mr Warburton, the Public Trustee, in giving evidence, took up the same position as that expressed in his communications to the Opunake Town Board, which wo have already published in full in our columns. With regard to fixing the rent, although meetings were called, the Trustee had complete control of the position. If a higher rent than the old one were agreed upon he might, of course, approve it. When he took charge 54,000 acres had been let, bringing in a rental of £7OOO a year ; he had increased the leased area to 93,143 acres, bringing in a rental of £17,000 a year. The expenses in connection with applications for new leases were all reasonable and in accordance with the Act, except that certain reductions in favor of applicants had been made. As to insurance, the lessees had no substantial grievance, as any party to an insurance can require that the money be applied to the reconstruction of the building. The Act was not intended to assist the struggling settler, for that would have been an invasion of the rights of private property. With regard to the payment of rates he said it was simply a question between one private party and another. If he could get out of paying rates he considered he was justified in doing so. As to fencing he acted on the same principle as with regard to rates. He would not fence except in compliance with the Fencing Act.