LAND BOARD ELECTION.

Southland Times, Issue 21101, 5 June 1930, Page 3

LAND BOARD ELECTION.

• To the Editor. Sir,—On behalf of the committee of leaseholders who nominated Mr J. C. Paterson as a candidate for the vacancy on the Land Board, I have been asked to place a few facts before your readers, particularly those who have a vote at the forthcoming election next month. I have read Mr Hargcst’s circular relating to the functions of a Land Board and the ’leading article in your valuable paper. The suggestion that there is a misapprehension as to the duties of a Land Board is contrary to fact. It is unnecessary to state that at least ninety-five per cent, of those occupying leases know that the board is an administrative body and not a legislative one. We, as leaseholders, hold Colonel Hargest in the highest esteem, both as a returned soldier and as a citizen. What we take exception to is a board composed of “freeholders” meeting to administrate matters connected with leases. It is certainly kind of them to give their time to matters in which they have no interest. But when they-deal with leasehold lands only why should there be any “freeholders” on the board? Unfortunately the Act only allows Crown tenants the right to elect one representative, and now that they have the opportunity they should take advantage of it, and return a “brother in distress” —one who is earnest in his desire to assist his fellow leaseholders. Mr Paterson has been farming on a leasehold property for the past twenty years and has proved himself a practical and capable farmer. He enjoys the confidence of all who know him, and if elected will acquit himself favourably in the interests of all.—l am, etc., A. J. CAMERON, Hon. Sec. to the Committee. To the Editor. Sir, —As an Education leaseholder I am interested in the Land Board election. I have just received a circular issued by Mr Paterson’s committee, which tries to point out that a leaseholder is better fitted to represent the Crown tenants than a man who farms a freehold. To me it is not the fact whether it be a leaseholder or a freeholder that represents us on the Land Board, but the man who has the most experience in board matters. Mr Paterson’s committee also states that he is in a position to give his time to board matters. I claim that our present representative, Colonel Hargest, has not only time to attend, but has already given ten years of etficient service in Land Board matters, and is more capable than one who has had no such experience. Mr Paterson and one of his committee called on me soliciting my v.ote; on being asked for a reason why Mr Hargest should be put off the Land Board, they both replied they had no fault to find with his work on the board. Surely this is proof that although Mr Hargest is farming a freehold property he has helped to administer the land laws with equity and justice. If returned what more could Mr Paterson do for us? And although Mr Paterson has been to Wellington on two occasions as one of a deputation, I fail to see how that gives him any added qualification to represent us on the board. Every public body is strengthened by having among its personnel one who has a thorough knowledge of its affairs. The other members of the board are practically newly-appointed. I therefore urge electors not to be led astray by the position as stated in the circular, but to vote for Mr Hargest, who has so ably filled the position in the past. As far as I can see Mr Paterson’s grievance is that he cannot make his leasehold freehold. If Mr Paterson wants the land laws altered let him aspire for a seat in Parliament, where such laws are made.—l am, etc., LEASEHOLDER.