TO THE EDITOR.

Patea Mail, Volume VI, Issue 532, 12 June 1880, Page 2

TO THE EDITOR.

[Correspondents are invited to discuss matters of public interest with fairness arid brevity ; this journal being an impartial medium of discussion and advocacy for all affairs relating to the County of Patca.]

BUSH SETTLERS AND ROADS. Sm,—“ Self-Reliant’s” statement shall not pass unchallenged. He says that twothirds of the rates for the past seven years have been spent on the bush roads. That statement has been repeatedly made at Board meetings/ when money has been asked for, and as often contradicted ; and although the opponents of bush settlement have been challenged to show anything of the sort, by actual reference to the Board’s documents, they have never yet ventured upon that test. Those dwellers on the beach are pleased to call every road inland of the County road a bush road, no matter if they do run for a couple of miles through valuable properties of open land before reaching the bush. The actual amount, out of the Board’s funds, spent really within the bush, has not been nearly as large as many imagine, for the Provincial Government some years ago, gave £3OO for this special purpose, and also cleared the Ball Road from’ Woodvillc to 6 miles inland. All the improvements on the Clifford, Hurley, and Wilford roads have been done with the money of the deferred payment settlers, who also contributed £BO, out of a contract of £l3O, to make earthworks bn the Ball road, 'which earthworks are not within two miles of the nearest deferred payment section. That the bush takes more money from the Board than it pays in is, however, undoubted, and 1 do not know why those living on the County road should not help" to make and maintain bush roads, as long as bush settlers are taxed to maintain the County road in a state of good repair. “Self-Reliant,” when he bought or accepted his property, from Government, was probablj’ aware that land in this as in every other County is disposed of by the Crown to individuals only on condition that, they shall be liable to rates for the purpose of improving roads, and rendering settlement of back country possible.The real question now is, not that the bush settlers are unmindful of what the Board has done for them in the past, but that in the future there is a .probability of there being no money to do anything more. Fancy £l5O (out of which about £SO will be swallowed up in expenses), being raised for one year’s expenditure on all the by-roads from Carlyle to the Manawapou ; and seven Commissioners, one secretary, two auditors, and occasionally a surveyor, all being duly appointed to see fair-play. Although the outside settlers were afraid of an extortionate rate being levied (without reason, as I believe), nearly all those with whom I have spoken on the subject regard the present l foui'penny rate, of which notice has been given, as not enough, and are agreed that a sixpenny rate on this year’s valuation would not have hurt anyone. We bush settlers paid from 30s to £3 10s per acre for our land. How much did “Self-Reliant” and nearly, all outside settlers originally pay for theirs? The Government Las enhanced the value? of their properties by making them a good road at the expense of the country. “ Self-Reliant” thinks we ought to pay rates on 10,000 acres of land which is being rapidly improved, and do the road-work ourselves. Docs he remember aManutahi member of the Board promising to gravel Peacock’s cutting, if it were greatly improved ? And what followed ? In conclusion, for the large ratepayers to band together for the purpose of,striking a rate which would barely keep one ablebodied man employed all the year round is not the way to court moderation on the part of those who want roads, should they ever have the chance of retaliating.—l am, &c., . , . • r - A Busn Settler.; Woodvillc, June 8.

Sir,—ln your leading article of the.3rd ultimo occurs the following : ‘‘ VYe do not agree with the policy professed by those large holders who refuse to assist in doing for other settlers what was previously done for them. The Government helped them : let them help the late-comers, A reasonably liberal road rate might be laid without hurting the large bolder,while it would greatly benefit the small settlcis.” “ No district can prosper under the system of road administration which certain large holders are trying to force on Patea West.” “ The Commissioners have the opportunity of conceding by grace what their opponents have failed to extort by right.” , ■> ; Will you kindly explain the policy professed by the large holders ? I have heard of no policy excepting that the land that pays the rates should have the, claim in the expenditure of those rates. If you can see anything unfair in such a policy, I hope you will expound it. As for.refusing to assist others, facts give that statement a complete denial. If you look oyer the.-Patea West Boad; Board expenditure, say for the last‘ten years, ypu will see who paid the rates, and who received the chief benefit of those rates. As for other settlers : or the- Government helping the large runholders, as you term them, I fail to see how that help was applied. There was one way the Government helped those . runholders, or. early settlers, by taking from nine to twelve pounds per acre at public auction for tho same quality laud as the Government gave the military settlers to live upon. Accor-

cling to my view of the matter, those run holders paid for their road, besides paying to make roads to those small settlers whbought their land because there wi-n no roads, consequently getting their land at about one-fifth the price paid by those who purchased land with a road. Say, for instance, No. 1 purchases adjoining or with easy access to a road, at £lO per acre ; No. 2, purchases land of equal quality away back fiom the main road at £2 per acre. No. 2 says to No. 1, “ We will rate you at one shilling in the pound on £lO per acre, and rate ourselves at the same rate of one shilling in the pound ; you will pay 10s and I will pay 2s, I will then take the 10s per acre paid by you, and expend it to make a road to my land, for which I am only paying 2s, so as to make rny land of equal value to yours, and chiefly at jmur expense.” No. 2, not satisfied with taxing No. 1 five times higher than he himself pays, can yet deliver beef, mutton, and wool, at the door of No, 1 at one-third the cost that No. 1 can produce it, for the simple reason that No. 1 has to pay interest on £lO per acre, while No. 2 pays interest on £2 only, and receives at the same time the rates of No. 1 to improve his roads. I can assure you, sir, direct taxation will cause the small settler as well as the innholder to take care how the money is expended ; and as for a rate not hurting the large holder, I should imagine the said holder would be the best judge. What Sight have their opponentsfailed to extort ? is a fact beyond dispute that two pieces oi land of equal quality, one adjoining a road already made, will realise a far higher price than the one situated away from a road ; such road, the intending purchaser knows, it will take years to make, unless that part of the Act which refers to a special rate he brought into operation. 1 have no doubt we shall see the same principle in operation when tire Waimatc Plains are sold, viz., the lands adjoining the road already made will realize a higher price than the lands without roads, although the land may be of equal quality. Please define i nnholder as applied to residents in Patca West Road Board district, and yon wiil oblige Observer.