The Patea Mail. (Published Wednesdays and Saturdays) SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1879.

Patea Mail, Volume IV, Issue 396, 1 February 1879, Page 2

The Patea Mail. (Published Wednesdays and Saturdays) SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1879.

On account of the number of inquiries received at Wanganui respecting the deferred payment sections of Momakahi land, applications for which will be received at the District Laud Office, Carlyle, on the 14th of February, the Wanganui Herald has been induced to furnish information respecting the Block, and the regulations governing the purchase of deferred payment sections. The information is a summary of clauses referring to deferred payment land as contained in the Land Act, and is similar to that published in those columns about the time the Whakamara land was open for selection. In view of the fact that further portions of Momaliaki laud will from time to time bo put in the market, our contemporary lias been doing useful work. On one point, however, we regret that a most serious mistake should have been made. In any land district tiic price per acre to be paid for laud taio n up by any selector shall be— u Whore land is open for selection and sale for cash, then such cash price and one-half thereof added thereto ; or, whore land is required to bo pul up at auction, then the highest price for the land at such auction ; and the land in such cases is to be put to auction at the upset price, and one-half thereof added thereto.” Our contemporary quotes as above from Clause 58 of the Land Act, and then says—“ The upset price of the sections now open for selection is three pounds, so that the applicants obtaining them will pay four pounds ten shillings per acre.” Whilst we have good reason for believing that much ol the land will fetch over £4 10s per acre if it comes to auction, we confess to being astonished that such a high upset price should have been fixed. Spite of the price being in plain print in the columns of onr contemporary we could not believe that such a high upset price hail re.-.li)’ been fixed. Reference to the N.Z. Gazette at once showd that our contemporary was in error. We were the more surprised at this ns the Herald takes more thin ordinary interest in trie land laws, land tax, and kindred subjects, and at all times advocates moderate prices and easy terms for small capitalists. If wo mistake not onr eontemporary plumes its If on its thorough acquaintance with the laud question in all its hearings, theoretical and practical, and on being the implacable foe of the land shark and wealthy speculator, and the champion of the working man, its cry being “ The land for the people, and the people for the land.” Yet it had never a word to say against what should have presented itself as something akin to extortion—four pounds ten shillings per acre for land much of which is bush. It is almost inexcusable for a paper of such high standing and pretensions to have b/nndered in the interpretation of a Clause of the Land Act, which it had specially quoted, and worse that, supposing its interpretation had been correct, it should have had nothing to say for the poor man against such over-reaching-proclivities cm the part of the Wellington Land Board in fixing so high an upset price- It happens tliatonr contemporary was wrong. It had misinterpreted the Clause or announcement in the Gazette. The cash laud is gazetted to be sold at the upset price of £2 per acre; the deferred payment land is gazetted at one iiaif higher, namely £0 per acre, the price at which it is open to selection, and not £4 10s as stated by our contem•fiorary. There is little doubt but what the price named in the Herald will frighten many intending applicants from troubling further about this land. It will be deemed to be beyond the means of that class of men which it is most desirable •should be located there, and so harm will have been done. We trust onr contemporary will promptly correct the error it has unfortunately fallen into. For our own part wo entirely disagree with the Land Board in fixing a uniformly high price? on land of variable quality. We do not agree with high upset prices. While undoubtedly clear and fern land is worth more than £3 per acre, hush land is worth very much less. We do not consider it right that land should in any case bo priced at its full value, otherwise there is no inducement for competition and sales xiag. Lund, as hitherto priced by Captain Wray, has in a few cases been growled at, but sales have always proved the correctness of bis judgment. The Land'Officer'in fixing prices has always kept within bounds, and the prices have invariably been a fair guide as to quality, and it has been deemed safe, by such as could not find time to inspect the land, to bid well above the upset. Bush, open, and fern lands have in the present case been all priced alike, at £2 for cash and £3 for deferred payment. Amongst the bush land some is bound to bo rugged, and wo do not hesitate to say that £3 is more than its value, much less is it worth £4 10s, the price stated by the Wanganui Herald, at which deferred land could be taken up. We have no reason to doubt but Captain Wray priced the land in his usual way, having regard to actual valne,

hut the Wellington Waste Lands Board, being totally unacquainted with the'land, or the district, lias seen fit to fix a uni-_ form and thei-Tore in some cases unfair upset price, which will most likely result in some of the land remaining unsold, ami will serve as a pretext at. some future lime for holding land sales elsewhere.