The Land Bill.

Te Aroha News, Volume XXVII, Issue 43113, 13 July 1907, Page 2

The Land Bill.

(Continued from last issue). HOW THE COURT ASSESSED LAND VALUES.

He wished to tell his hearers how the Court proceeded when fixing the price the Government had to pay on acquiring a large estate. This was much what usually happened. Settlers saw an estate suitable for settlement. They petitioned the Minister, and pressure was brought to bear on the Administration to take the land. The owner was alert. Fe knew the department had its eye on the land. 1 He saw its officers going over it. When asked his price he named a sum the Government could not afford. The treaty proceeded, and often the Government had to fight. The) Herrick case was a good example. The Goverment took it the other day. Originally the Government offered £3 17s Gd an acre, but the owners asked £4 10s, whieh the Government thought extravagant. Private negotiations effected nothing, and the Government took the land by proclamation. The owners then elaimed £5 10s an acre. They brought witnesses from all parts of the district, seme of whom swore that the land was worth about £6. The owners said : “Oh, we offered it at £4 10s, because at that time we had another place in our eye, but someone has got it now, and we can’t sell, at £4 10s.” The Court gave them £5, or 10# more than they had asked a little while before. The Government had to pay £48,000 odd for the estato ; the amount on which the Land Tax was fixed was £29,000. In other words, the Government had to pay nearly double the Land Tax value. The Hatuna case provided another example. In the witness-box £200,000, he thought, was claimed as its value. Finally, the Government had to pay £141,000 for land valued for taxing purposes at £117,000. Up to 1905 the estates acquired totalled 132, and the Government had to pay £442,000 more than the value as fixed for taxing purposes. Then there was the Flax bourne Estate. The owners claimed £300.000. The Government could get no local wituesses to give evidence on the value of the land. One after another in the neighbourhood turned their backs on us. Finally the Government had to bring witnesses from both islands and pay handsome fees. On the other side a host of witnesses told the Court that the property was worth all that was being asked for it. The Court of Appeal followed the English precedent in regard to fixing a value. In England, when land was compulsorily taken for railway purposes, etc., the Court had added a margin of from 10 up to 30 per cent, to the full value the owner had been able to prove. The Judges gave as their reason for this that if the State took land oompulsorily care must be taken that the State pay for it and that the owner did not suffer any loss. Our own Court of Appeal also added a margin to the sum an owner made out as fair full value. Besides this, there were legol expenses and the cost of bringing witnesses long distances. All this had to be piled on the price the State had to pay. On whoso back did this fall f The Crown tenant had to pay live per cent, on all the land had cost the State, including roading the estate and all the cost he had mentioned. The State had had to pay too much for much of the land taken under the Land for Settlements Act. When depression came, as come it must some day, he supposed either the Crown tenant would have to pay more than a fair rent or else he must go and ask the State to take the burden from him. As to acquiring estates, not an owner but could force the Go yammsst isto the Compensation Opart tomorrow. The State recognised that it had to pay dearly, and was coerced into having to pay any excessive price. The Government, however, weuld oontinue prudently to purchase under the Land for Settlements Act. Good work remained to be done ip that way. But the point he wanted to make was this : They could not rely on the Land for Settlements machinery to provide all the land necessary to satisfy the land hunger of the colony’s people to-day. To do that it was necesssry to look elsewhere. (To be Continued.)