SETTLERS’ GRIEVANCES.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 62, 6 November 1912, Page 5

SETTLERS’ GRIEVANCES.

COMP EN S A TIO N WA NT ED,

For many years settlors possessing properties on the Stratforcl-Whunga-momona railway, and more especially tlio.se settlers in the neighbourhood i f ie Went, have been endeavouring to obtain compensation from the Government for land confiscated, paddocks rendered useless, moans of access cut off, acres ruined through blocked drains, and for damages suffered generally through the running cf the line through their properties. They claim that they are entitled to the compensation which others have received, an l while recognising the enhanced value of their land through the presence of a railway, are of the opinion that they are practically worse off to-day than they wore before the railway came their way. Many, acting on the half-a-loaf principle, took from the Government what they could get, but, at least three of the settlers are holding out for what they consider fair and adequate recompense for_ loss sustained. In order to assist them to this end, the following petition will be presented to the authorities:—

“To the Hon. the Minister for Public Works, —

“Sir, —We, the undersigned settlors, farmers, and residents would respectfully bring under your notice Die verygreat injustice done to some of your pioneer settlers on tne route of the Stratford-Whangumomona ra.hvay, cnrougii the arbitrary action of tne Public Works Department in not giving reasonable compensation for the laud taken. In some cases land inis been rendered practically useless in wet weather through tne blocking up of drains, and in this connection wt would point out to you that previously to this railway being formed through the country tire settlors drained iheir land, but 'through _ the Public Works blocking these drains, they had been put to further trouble ami expense. In one case, chat of Mr Huzziff, £151)11 had been spent in draining, but the jail, way had cut through the drains, causing the land to bo flooded and the grass toTperi-sh, and the only compensation offered was £35, and this in the face of losing a large number cf stock, We would also respectfully point out that the worst of these sufferers are Grown tenants. All the freeholders from Stratford to Hniroa received compensation. The late Minister for. Pin lie Works (Mr. MacDonald) visited the district last May, and promised to -amend the law and give a reasonable compensation. All the settlers ask is that they be left in no worse position than their neighbours, whose property the railway has benefited and not injured in any way. Wo would also ask that these drains ho cleaned out at once, and that this bo done every year, and that the settlers lie given fair and reasonable compensation for land acquired for railway purposes, and we, yotif petitioners, will ever pray, etc.”

Mr. Huzzlfs’s Casej Speaking to a reporter of the ‘Stratford Evening' Post,’ Mr. T. Huzzifl said his property consisted of 9/3 acres, part freehold, part L.1.P., and part 0.K.P.; it was quite close to the thiiroa Kailway Station. When lie took up the property it was heavy, swamp land, but at a cost of £ISOO he drained it and put it down in grass. Then the railway came. His drains wers all blocked, and the ; Public Works department substituted one..big drain, which they fenced off, with the exception of a few chains. That was four years ago, andrthe drain, had never been cleaned out; hb that it was in its present condition quite useless. Over two years ago, he asked the Railway Department to have it cleaned out, bat the answer was that it would cost too much. As to what it had cost him, Mr. Huzziff continued, that his land had gone back to the original swamp. About 150 acres of grass whs ruined, and there was how’on the ffitea affected a good crop of water rush and other rushes. The land would have to lie grubbed all over again. He had lost the grass of this area for two years, and lie would still lose at least another year’s grazing. Some time ago the Government sent out a man to invos igate his case. The officer recommended ,i grant of £ss—£3o of which was towards cleaning the drains, and the other £25 for a bridge. Mr. Huzziff refused the offer. Ho estimated that lie lost through the Public Works blocking his drains over £IOOO. His woolshed had flooded, and being unable to properly look after his sheep, he had lost heavily in wool and, lambs. Added to this he had received nothing for the 161 acres of land taken for the railway. This was the best of his flat land, and was well drained; he valued it at £2O an acre. Them again, 10 acres of land wore rendered almost useless through being indiscriminately subdivided by the line.

Mr. O’ Neill’s Cass. Mr O’Neill, who was also approached, said his case differed considerably from Mr Huzziff’s. He owned 800 acres mostly of freehold land, at Te Wera. The railway went right through the property, confiscating about 30 acres. Twelve'years ago the Government officials asked what compensation was required in the event of the railway going through his property. Ho said, “Twenty pounds per acre,” but was given no reply. He was differently placed to the other settlers, since he would benefit irrespective of what route was chosen for the line—the “reserved route or the present one. The land taken way, the best of his farm, and was worth £2O an acre. Further, the railway cut up the property into some very unworkable, paddocks. Ten acres of it was rendered more or less useless through the blocking of drains put in at considerable expense. The Department offered him for the land taken and damage done, £3O, in full settlement. He refused this offer, but tin Department told him that they considered the fact that the railway wont through his property was siffii lent compensation for any loss sustained. “Whereas,” added Mr. O’Neill, “it did not benefit mo at all. The reserved route would have served my purposes equally well.”