“BUSH SETTLER” CLAIMS.

Patea Mail, Volume VI, Issue 540, 1 July 1880, Page 3

“ BUSH SETTLER ” CLAIMS.

Sir, —All lovers of justice are indebted to “ Self-Reliant ” for having so ably proved the case of the bush settlers. He shows you that in 1868, land near the present main road fetched from £2 to £3 2s Gd per acre, and he might have added so lately as 1872 ; and ho also tells you that since that time the main road lias been made at the expense of the country (it is printed county, but “ Self-Reliant” would not make such a statement as that). He admits that the bush settlers a>’c taxed to maintain that road, and that our own by-roads are in a disgraceful state. It requires no argument to prove that those fortunate enough to be close to tbc main road have reaped a largo pecuniary benefit; and we are painfully convinced of the fact that, as that road was made with borrowed money, the bush settlor, equally with his luckier neighbour, will have to pay interest and principal, as well as maintenance charges. We may, then, fairly argue that the Government have done a good deal for the outside, settlers, and that they, in return, should help us. “ Self-Reliant” says that the main road is lor our comfort and convenience, as much as for his; but a good road running through the County does not benefit us much, so long as we have to go through miles of mud and over dangerous earthworks to get to it. Very few, probably, begrudge the County 'rates, but we could live as wcdl wilhout the road, if we arc never to have passable by roads. The bush roads arc for the convenience of all, and arc pretty, well used by the outside settlers in fine weather. Another point that “ Observer ” and “Self-Reliant” find it convenient to forget is that until the Rating Act came into force, three years ago, bush lands wore rated, acre for acre, precisely the same as the valuable outside properties;: and the rate-roll even now shows very

little diffbi-ehce • between 'some of the bush farms and those in favoured liant” say that ,he and his neighbours have paid,, and continue to pay, dearly for their privileges ? They came first and were first served ; that is a very different; thing;. “Observer’s” logic, by which he proves that bush laud returns to its fortunate owner five times the income per aero that open land does, is rather faulty. He loaves out the cost of felling and clearing, the enormous additional cost of fencing, and the vc.ry small quantity of stock that hush land will cany for the first four years. He and Self-Reliant ” arc firm believers in “ The good old rule, 'The simple plan. That tl ey should lake who have the power. And they should keep who cun.” But that wifi not make this the prosperous district it should be, with a fairly liberal road policy. I must beg to correct “ S.R.” ns to the handing movement, and those who know what took place whilst the late Board was in office, to get notice given of a fourpenuy rate, must admit the truth of my assertion. Observer” • preaches economy to the now Board and to,the hush settlers, and tolls ns that direct taxation will make ns look very sharp as to how the money goes. Well, other events have had the same effect, and the result of onr researches so far is that the new Board is proceeding to practise economy —at the bush settlers’ (deferred payment) expense. But lam afraid that that won’t do. It is conduct that the merchant would not be guilty of. Perhaps the •few would think it a good joke.—l am, &e., A Bush Skttmcli. Woodvillc, 29th.