East Coast Election.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 1000, 17 November 1881, Page 2

East Coast Election.

Mr Gannon at Gisborne. Mr. Gannon, pursuant to notice, met the Gisborne electors, and addressed them in Macfarlane’s Hall on Tuesday evening last. The Hall was crowded, many electors from the country attending. Over 400 persons being present, and, Mr. Townley occupied the chair, and alter making a few preliminary remarks, introduced Mr. Gannon, who was warmly received. Mr. Gannon said—

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen : I have invited you here to-night to tell you the reasons I had in corm ,ing forward. One of the reasons was to meet the three other candidates, so that they may hear what I have got to say. I shall endeavor to keep clear of personalities, as the subjects I have to treat of are purely of a political character. I shall start by declaring myself a supporter of the present government ; but not a bliijd supporter of them. I support the Government on very good grounds. If you carry your minds back to the time when the Hall Ministry came into office, nothing was heard throughout the colony but financial depression on all hands. Bankruptcies were the order of the day. Work was scarce; trade at a standstill ; our credit at home and abroad was bad ; despair was on every one’s face, and generally the prospects of the colony looked indeed dark. The Government found that the stern hand of retrenchment was necessary, and although they had a difficult task before them, they commenced and carried on the work with a purpose of will, which has greatly improved the circumstances of the colony at the present day. The civil servants, and others with small salaries, were those who felt it most, but the Government stood unflinchingly to their post, and did not confine their retrenchment to the Civil Service. They made a severe onslaught on men of capital, ending in the passing of the Property Tax Act, which has met with general approval. Last Session, in the Property Assessment Act the Government did not overlook a most important matter, for they made provision by which absentees could be reached. That, in my opinion, is a matter of immense satisfaction, and one on which the Government are to be congratulated. By that Act £11,000,000 worth of property is brought within the area of taxation that was excluded. That fact alone entitles them to a fair share of support. The Hall Ministry may not be a brilliant one, but they have shown themselves men fit for emergencies last year under the Property Tax Act. LAND TAX. I am opposed to both the Land Tax and the Income Tax. The Land Tax will catch those whose capital is invested in land, while men who lay out their capital for pleasure or for gain in a racing stud or in any property other than land, escape. The Land Tax would strike the small land holder, and let scot free the capitalist speculating with his money in companies. If w-e had only a Land Tax the poor man would be mulct more severely, in proportion to his wealth, than the man who really is a large owner. I am opposed to the Income Tax, because it would fall too severely upon the man who has to rely on his skilled labor, men of the artizan and other classes. The tax is in itself too inquisitorial. It opens the road to dishonesty, where persons are so inclined. In England, inthe time of great national emergency, the Income Tax had proved of great service to the country ; but when the pressing necessities that had called it into existence, had passed away, the tax has generally been relinquished. Another objection to the Income Tax is because it is an impost that interferes too much with the private and social matters of the people ; and, therefore, I shall support the Property Tax, as a means of taxation, in preference to all other modes. I believe that a Property Tax properly carried out is the fairest mode of taxation, for it makes those who are best able to carry the weight, bear the burden. LOCAL GOVERNMENT. This is one of the great questions before the country, and may be looked upon as the anti-thesis of Provincialism. Poverty Bay is, of all other districts much indebted to the possession of local government. We were for a long time attached to Auckland, but I don’t think we have much to thank Auckland for. From the geographical position in which Poverty Bay is situated no form of government will suit it that deprives the people of the district from carrying on the administration of their own local affairs. Poverty Bay must have its own local government. We are bounded by mountains on three sides, and the only outlet is by the sea. We have nothing in common with Auckland or Hawke’s Bay. And- if Provincial institutions were re-established, we should be placed between two stools. When sending representatives from here to any Provincial Council, either in Hawke’s Bay or Auckland, they would have little weight, they would be everlastingly in a minority, and having no weight; we should be altogether at the mercy of outsiders. But whatever form of Government exists, it will be necessary for the people themselves

I to have the control of their own affairs. I The great drawback to the success of local government here is that threefourths of the land in the district pays no quota towards the local revenue. The Europeans contribute about £2OOO, while the Natives, who are the largest land owners, pay the magnificent sum of £45 a year towards the rates. The present system of local government requires to be remodelled. The County system requires modification. There are two co-existent local bodies which clash with each other, having similar functions. In my opinion there should be but one rating power —that of the County Council, and the Road Boards merely distributors of the money raised within their boundaries.

With regard to local revenue, 10 per cent, is supposed to be paid to the Government by Europeans leasing Native lands, now I think this is money which should be spent in the district where it was raised. It should be expended in local public works. And this would add to and open up a greater field for labor. I do not see why it should go to build Post Offices in Wellington, or Lunatic Asylums in Auckland. 1 am in favor also of a certain per centage of the money raised under the Property Tax being spent in the district in which it is raisd. BATING NATIVE LANDS.

I am of opinion that Native lands should be rated. Take land near the Arai for instance ; there is a beautiful tract of land, owned by Natives, vastly improved by the rates expended in that district. The Europeans alone have paid the rates, the Natives not contributing one iota. This should not be. I must take issue with Captain Porter with respect to his view of levying and collecting the rate. I think his scheme is something to the effect that in every block of land a particular portion should be set apart, and that portion bear the burden of the tax for the residue of the block. I am surprised that a gentleman of Captain Porter’s knowledge and experience should bring forth a scheme so utterly impracticable and incapable of being carried out. Following out Captain Porter’s idea, he says, take 1000 acres ; he takes a rule and pencil, and in an arbitrary manner cuts off on the map a portion of the block, the owners of which would- have to pay the tax for the remainder of the owners in the whole block. If 20 or 30 persons were the owners of this block, those who had to pay the tax for the others, would naturally say—- “ Why should our land be taxed to pay the rate due by others of our tribe.” They would look at the question of the ownership of the land according to their ancestral rights. In one part of the block a portion of the owners would claim because, possibly, their ancestor had killed somebody there ; and these people would, and rightly, too, consider it an unjust and oppressive law that would compel them to forfeit their land to pay the rates of others of the tribe who claimed and owned in another part of the block, and under a different ancestor, who, perhaps, had not killed and eaten anybody. My proposal in the rating of these lands is this : —Take your 1000 acres. The officer, say the County valuer, finds out the rateable value of the land. He ascertains the amount of rates payable, and this sum should remain as a lien upon it, and a first charge when the land was sold or leased. In the case of lands under lease the European should pay the rates, deducting the same from the annual rent. Captain Porter argued last night that if the rate remained as a lien upon the "land, that Europeans would not purchase such lands because of such lien. That, in fact, a deadlock would be brought about in the land market simply because a few pounds of rates remained as an embargo on the land. Did ever anyone put forth such an absurd line of argument to a body of intelligent men ? Why, there is nothing so common as liens on Native land. Ask any of the surveyors, and others who are daily having experience in the matter. In almost every case of survey of Native land, the survey charges, often amounting to hundreds of pounds, remain as a lien on the land, to be paid off when the land has passed through the court, by Europeans. Not only are these liens allowed by law, but the surveyors are entitled to charge 8 per cent, per annum on the amount. But no one ever heard of a European being debarred from purchasing or leasing solely on account of the lien. The amount of the lien is the first consideration. The purchasers know that it is the first charge on the land, and they regulate their terms with the Natives accordingly. In the case of the rates the liens would be small indeed as compared with survey liens. In the case of lands becoming individualized after the rateable value was ascertained, the amount of rates payable could be apportioned off in a corresponding ratio to the subdivided areas. THE LAND QUESTION. The question of land tenure is now occupying the attention of almost every country in the civilised parts of the globe. It is the duty of every man to take an interest in the question of the land tenure of the country in which he lives. Because upon that question, and its judicious handling depends the people’s prosperity. In the House of Commons recently, Lord Hartington, in a powerful address to the landed squires, told them that the ,

land laws of England were in that position that it was impossible for the actual cultivators of the soil to become or to even hope to become, the actual proprietors, and that such a condition of affairs existed in no other country. Let us hope that it never will. It was a cardinal point in the policy of the different Australian Governments to give all possible facilities to opening up the country. In Queensland, large tracts of land have been given away at nominal prices. In New South Wales and Victoria equally liberal land laws exist. In none of the Australian Colonies is the acquisition of land by men of small means hedged round with greater difficulties than in New Zealand. In coming nearer home, let us look to the East Coast, unequalled for the fertility of its soil and the excellence of its climate ; I ask, is there any part of the world Where it is so difficult to get a piece of land ? (Applause). Mr. Gannon graphically illustrated the difficulties that beset settlers coming to reside in Poverty Bay, and enquired: Is this sort of thing to continue ? (Applause, and cries of no). As to perfect titles, there is, exclusive of Government lands, scarcely such a thing in the district; and until something is done, and a proper sub-division of the land made, there is no hope of prosperity for this district. Nothing has as yet been done towards the attainment of this object, except the introduction of Bills to settle law suits and suit private ends. We do not want Bills to settle law suits, we want laws to prevent them—laws that will provide for a just and righteous guarantee to the Natives of their subdivided lands, and security of title to European holders who desire to purchase them. I may say the principal reason I have in coming forward, is to have the power to put an end to this state of affairs. Take Hansard from first to last, and you will not find anything that has been done by successive Governments calculated to bring about a much desired solution of this difficulty, and as to the powers held by the Native Court judges, in the case of appeal heard not long ago with reference to sub-division awards made by Judge Haise of the Native land relating to lands that passed under the Poverty Bay Grants Act, His Honor Judge Richmond of the Supreme Court, ruled that the Native Land Court had absolutely no power to sub-divide lands such as Makauri and Matawhero held under joint tenancy. We have a law that enables us to find out the land that belongs to each tribe, the land that belongs to each sub-tribe, the land that belongs to each family, and now we must have a law that will simplify the finding out of the interest of each individual. Every individual Native owner of land should be able to point out his own individual piece of land. The Native then would be enabled to deal with any one he pleased. The man of little capital would have a chance, and the monoply of land buying, would not remain as it is at present in the hands of a few voracious landsharks. Let us take the Kaiti block on the opposite side of the river from Gisborne. That block is owned by one hundred and ten persons. Having equal shares in a subdivision each owner would be entitled to 40 acres. These owners are scattered all along the Coast. Some at Waiapu, some in Hawke’s Bay. These men get practically nothing for their land, and not a single owner can point to a blade of grass in the whole block that he can call his own indisputable property. What applies to the Kaiti block, applies also to hundreds of thousands of acres in this district. If these lands were cut up and sub-divi-ded and the Natives really desire that such should be done an impetus be given to settlement. Capital would be introduced into the district, larger fields of labor would be opened up ; the man' of small means would have a chance of becoming a freeholder, and we could all at last realise the fact that an era of prosperity had in very truth begun to dawn upon the district. Unless a law is passed that will provide for removingthe difficulties that now exist in the way of getting these lands cut up into smaller areas, the many valuable blocks of land in the district will remain to us like that Promised Land which we can gaze upon, but not possess. (Mr. Gannon explained at length the position in which Europeans in the district are situated holding imperfect leases from Europeans, and pointed out the insecurity they labored under). We all know where the disease lies, and what we have to seek for as the remedy. I do not propose to submit an original plan of my own, but simply to explain briefly, a law that will be found on the Statute Books of New Jersey, providing for the subdivision of lands held identically under the same tenure as the land is held here, namely, joint tenancy, and tenancy in common. (Mr. Gannon, at considerable length, stated, the modus operandi under which the law was carried out).

Mr. Gannon then went on to state : A remarkable feature about the present Native land laws relating to the subdivision of land is this, if the Government buy one share in a’block of land, it can have that particular interest individualized ; but, that right which the State claims for itself for the benefit of the State is absolutely denied to a private individual. The Parliament has affirmed the principle in one case. Why not in the other ? So long as obstacles are thrown in the way of having the lands subdivided, so

long will the acquisition of land in this district be confined to a few gigantic land speculators, whose interests are to keep the country locked up, and to retard all progress. No capital but their capital must come into the Bay. They alone must have the monopoly' Their interests are not our interests. The law that suits them will not suit us. Their ways are not our ways. There is in this district an Association of capitalists banded together, and known as the East Coast Land and Settlement Company. That Associationis now going under an aZios, having recently changed its name to the New' Zealand Land Settlement Company. Gentlemen, there is always something suspicious about an alias. I see by the papers that one of the members of this Association has lately taken his departure for England. This gentleman, now on his way to the Home country, is reported in the public press to have stated that there are a million of acres of land being forced upon the Company by the Natives. I do not know if that be correct. But this Ido know r , that this Land Company is extending its evil operations to all parts of the coast. So long as they can put their brand upon the land, no one else will dare approach it. The small capitalist, the man seeking for a farm, is frightened away. How can he enter intoTi conflict with a gigantic ring of landsharks ? The opening up of the country by means of roads, would be detrimental to the interests of the Company. Therefore, they will oppose them. Take for instance the proposed road to Waiapu, where there is splendid land equal in fertility to any in Poverty Bay. If a large body of men were employed on that road, and the country through which it would pass opened up, the land would become greatly enhanced in value. But then we are told that one million acres of land on the East Coast is being forced on the Company. We know that the operations of the Company along the East Coast, especially between here and Waiapu, are of a most extensive character. We are also aware that it took the Government over eight years, even with legislation exceptionally favorable, and which the Company as a private association of capitalists does not possess, to complete its titles to an area less by a few hundred thousand acres than what the Company claims. Is it then to the interest of the Company to do one single thing in the way of making the land dearer —the land they now are negotiating from the Natives, and endeavoring to get as cheaply as possible ? Is it to their interest to have public money expended on roads passing through land that may take the Company years, if ever, to obtain a perfect title to ? No ; certainly not. Nor is it to the interest of the Land Company for *a single Native to have his share cut out, as by that means dissentients who might now be coerced into selling could then have their portion allocated. But this cutting out of shares would damage the prospects of the Company, if all objectors to sell at their price had the alternative of picking the eyes out of the blocks, by getting their shares subdivided. Therefore, according to the gospel of the landsharks “ Thou shalt not subdivide.” Take the case of the waste lands in this district. These lands adjoin tli£ lands under the grasp of the company. To settle people upon these waste lands would enhance the value of the adjoining lands. But, the Company’s interest are not to be sacrificed. Therefore these lands must not be settled. That ■gentlemen is the position which the Land Company stands in the district ; and mark my words, if it is allowed to grow and spread its branches along the East Coast District, there is many a working man in the Bay who will live to taste the fruit—and a bitter taste it will have. Gentlemen, upon the public platform at Makaraka Mr. McDonald said that if you returned him to again represent this district there would be four members of Parliament resident in this district.

Mr. Allan McDonald : [Hear, hear.) Mr. Gannon : Gentlemen Mr. Allan McDonald says “ hear, hear.” Well, I am very glad that he is here. (Applause.) Mr. McDonald would be one of the four. A particular friend of mine, Mr. W. L. Rees, (laughter) would be another, Mr Dargaville would be a third, and Mr. De Lautour, of whom I desire not to say a single word derogatory to him, would be a fourth. Mr. Allan McDonald is a director of the East Coast Land Company ; Mr. Rees is, I believe, the Company’s solicitor; Mr. Dargaville is managing director, and gets for his services, according to the papers, per annum, “ a cool thou. Mr. De Lautour is also a director. What a nice quartette they would be in Parliament ? And not satisfied with that they actually bring out another director, Mr. Wi Pere, to run for the East Coast Maori Electoral District 1 Does it not stand to reason that these gentlemen, if elected, would simply follow out the dictates of human nature, and look after their own interests. You have not been asked to meet the directors and invest your capital in this company. If this institution is for the benefit of the working men and the settlers of this district, 1 say you have been snubbed by the company in no public meeting having been held here by the directors as has been held in other parts of the colony. No, they go to

the South Island, thinking, doubtless, that “ distance would lend enchantment to the view,” and they cajole men there who know nothing of the true state of affairs. But they dared not attempt to do so here. It is the duty of every man in the district to do his best to eradicate from our midst this festering sore that is destroying the vitality of the district. (Applause.) BETBENCHMENT IN THE CIVIL SEBVICE. I do not think that there is much room for making any very large reductions in the civil service. I believe the Government have done all that can be honestly and fairly done at present in that direction. In many important branches of the service men here are paid less than in the Australian colonies. I believe in good men being paid a fair salary for their services. There is one item that certainly requires reducing, and that is the vote for the Legislative expenses. In this colony it is £35,000 a year, much higher than in the Australian Colonies. I think the honorarium for members in the Upper House should be abolished. They are generally men of property. I think they should be satisfied with the honor. It is only fair to state that some of the members —the Hon. Mr. Waterhouse, I believe, is among the number—who expend their honarariam upon charities—others, however, expend it on themsselves. Over £IO,OOO a year could be saved to the country by doing away with payment of members in the Upper House. This brings me to the question of payment of members in the Lower House. I will say at once I believe they should be paid. Were they not paid I believe many deserving persons, useful as legislators, would be excluded from Parliament, not being able to go away from their business for three or four months. (Hear, hear.) THE GISBOBNE HABBOB. I look upon the proposal made this Session for an endowment as not a proper mode of working. A similar proposal was made in 1877. I disagree with works such as harbor constructions, being carried out by means of endowments, and by local bodies. We want here a harbor of refuge. The work is not one for the benefit of this district alone, but for the whole Colony, and its construction, therefore, should be treated as one of Colonial importance. I suggest that whoever is our member, he should move for a joint Committee, comprised of members of both Houses, to enquire and report upon, not only the advantage a harbor would be to Poverty Bay, but the benefit that would accrue to the Colony and the additional value that would accrue to the lands held by the Government as well. I feel assurd that if this is done such public attention will be drawn to the matter as will ensure success. There is a question relative to the

OTAGO AND CANTERBURY LEASES, and how they will be disposed of, that I wish to speak of. In Canterbury, Otago, Marlborough, Westland, and Southland there are 10,939.360 acres of land in the hands of 821 persons. One of those runholders having obtained a pastoral lease, paying the annual rental of £3OO a year, sub-let the same run for £3OOO a year, netting without any further effort on his part, £2,700. That fact will speak for itself without any further comment. These leases expire next year. If we return to the House to represent us, men who are large runholders, in what groove will their interests lie ? Would they be not liable to be actuated by that “ fellow feeling which makes us wondrous kind,” with regard to their squatocratic friends ? At all events, I think it is not wise for us to run any risk. I look upon the cutting up of the Otago and Canterbury runs into smaller areas, of relative importance to the cutting up and subdividing of the lands on the East Coast. In fact it is much the same question under a different hue. Is it not incredible that an area of land more than four times greater than the two Counties of Cook and Wairoa, should be permitted to remain in the hands of 821 persons. The taxation of the Colony is from £lO to £l5 per head, and no wonder the taxation of the Colony is so great when we find such a state of things exist as these—so large an area in the hands of so few. LAND ON DEFERRED PAYMENTS. With regard to the Homestead, or Deferred Payment, System, I do not agree with the existing laws and proposals. One of the principal objections is the residential clause, which compels a person to go almost immediately on the land; and, another thing, the area allowed is too limited, considering the nature of the waste lands in this district. The system I would propose is one that has been in force in South Australia for many years. The Land Transfer Act was born in South Australia, and I think that we need not be ashamed to follow the example of that country in regard to its law for deferred payment lands. The system is this: Certain land is set apart for selection. Selection is made, the greatest extent any one person can hold being 610 acres. Let us assume that the price is fixed, and, say a selector has to pay £lOO for his land. He has it for 10 years, and pays £lO, or at the rate of about 31 per cent, per annum, for three years in advance. At the end of the 3rd year he pays another £lO, which carries him on for the next 3 years. And at the end of\the sixth

year, he pays half the purchase money, £5O, the balance remaining at 4 per cent, and at the expiration of the remaining four years, he pays the balance, another £5O, and obtains the fee simple of the land. Some may say why not make him pay the money at once. That would simply be playing into the hands of the wealthy land speculators, and that is not the object of the Government. Its object is to promote settlement, and it secures that by making the selector’s sole object to remain on the land and improve it, and make there a home for himself aiid his family. Such a scheme as this would shut up the "land’ as against land speculators. I think if this system is carried out it will be more beneficial to this district than any yet proposed. On the subject of EDUCATION

I find that nearly every candidate that seeks election shirks this question.. It is one of the most heart-burning questions of our time, and tries the ability of our most eminent legislators when they stand face to face with it. I do not think that the present system of our education can be improved on. The rising generation must be educated at any cost. They must not be allowed to grow up as street Arabs to develop into larrikins. It is much better to pay money for schools than for gaols. I think that with regard to higher education, special facilities should be afforded for educating the children of parents in humble circumstances, but that the children of wealthy parents who are well able to afford to pay. for the higher educational training of their children, should pay for it. I am of opinion that as regards BIBLE BEADING IN SCHOOLS is concerned, teachers, whose duty is purely that of imparting secular instruction, should not be charged with the duty of teaching religion. The proper place for a child to be taught that is at its mother’s knee. It is there that a child becomes imbued with, and influenced in after life, by home teaching. It is there a child should learn the bible ; and if it do not, no mere school formula will do it any'good. Mr. Gannon spoke from his heart on this subject, followed by prolonged cheering, which was renewed on him resuming his seat. In response to an enquiry from the chair, several questions were asked of the candidate. In reply to Mr. J. G-. Henderson, Mr. Gannon said he should vote with the Government on a question of want of confidence. In reply to the same questioner, as to Mr. Gannon’s opinion of the Government’s policy with regard to Te Whiti’s, and other arests, the speaker said he quite approved of it, and reviewed the past and present state of the Waimate Plains difficulty, showing an intimate acquaintance with the subject. Mr. Gannon would support the opening of the Ormond-Opotiki Hoad. In fact all the roads in the district should have his support. He would not support a scheme of doling out charitable aid to small farmers. His desire was to elevate the small farmer, to make him independent, and not to rely on outside support. His opinion was that every facility should be given to small farmers to acquire and settle on their lands, and let them do the rest themselves.

In reply to another question, Mr. Gannon said he had already stated that he should oppose the re-granting of the Otago and Canterbury leases. But he saw a great danger in them being re-granted, if men of the runlie’, ding class are returned to the House. Mr. G. H. Wilson put a string of questions, to which he replied as follow : —He did not purpose any change in the incidence of taxation. The reason he understood why the Natives were not placed on a footing with Europeans in the Representation Act, was because the Queen’s authority was not respected in all parts of the Colony. When their lands are so divided, and they are universally made amenable to the law, then may they expect to enjoy a fuller franchise. He was opposed to a graduated land tax. He would oppose an export duty on wool, inasmuch as every sheepfarmer is not a millionaire, and he thought there was a difference between a man farming sheep, and a large absentee, land speculator. Besides the former had to meet exigencies that were peculiar to his calling; he is already taxed under the Property Tax Act; and ought not to have an additional impost put on the result of his industry. He was opposed to insular separation. The Colony was not too big as a whole, and he thought federation was more desirable than insulation. He would support there peal or alteration of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, viewing it as a piece of tyrannical legislation. These questions having been answered, and none others being asked, Mr. W. Ratcliffe ascended the stage, and proposed that the meeting accord to Mr. Gannon a hearty vote of thanks for the very able address he had given the electors. This was seconded by Mr. M. Smith, and earned with great reclamation. Mr. Gannon w’as greeted with cheers throughout the evening, and, after replying to the vote of thanks, moved a similar compliment to the chairman, and the meeting dispersed.