CORRESPONDENCE

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 331, 19 June 1911, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE

I NATIVE LAND RATING.

To the Editor. Sir, —In your issue of the 6th inst. you again devote much space to the Olifton County Council and their methods of dealing with this question, partly in an attempt to refute the objections made by councillors to the vile attacks that have from time to time been made upon them m your columns, and partly in defence of those same attacks. This reply is somewhat belated, as before writill" I desired to obtain an article published in the "Daily ivews" on April 1.1. This is now before me, and I find the statements it contains more than justifies the remarks I made at the Council meeting as to it.? character. Besides the imputation that the Council had. shirked their duty to save their pockets, there are other statements that are erroneous as to facts, and therefore misleading to your readers. I shall let them pass for the present, as I want to give attention to the statements made in, your leader of the <sth inst. It iis noticeable here that the self-interest charge against members of the Council is not repeated. Does wis indicate that you are unwilling to make the amende honorable, but will silently allow the charge to pa*s into oblivion? You still contend that the Council could under the Rating Act— where their tena-ncy exceeded six months—place these "occupiers" on the valuation roll. While 1 agree that these people ought to pay rates, your statement that'some of them have expressed willingness to do so does not affect the question unless they conveyed such a desire to the local body. This they have not done, and, if I know anything of human nature, are not likely to. It is easy to write of people cqnsenting to have their names placed upon the roll as occupiers of land for which ■ they would nob otherwise be; liable to pay taxes on, but it is nonsense to do so. Do you know of a case where under ordinary rating this has been doiie ? I have had a long experience on local bodies, and have not even heard of such a thing. People pay rates on | compulsion, not from choice. Going back to the qualification necessary to put * person on the roll under the Rating Act, the term you state —six months —is correct, only you have omitted one word, which, when inserted, utterly destroys the contention that the Council could in the past have dealt with this class of occupiers. If you refer to the interpretation clause of the Rating Act, 1908, it" will be found that "occupier" of native land, whether native or European, is defined as a person having a six months' "certain" tenancy. The land we ) are discussing is with small exceptions I administered by the Public Trustee, the I native occupier having no power to lease the piece that has been allotted him by the Trustee to live on. This being the case, the so-called leases are only private agreements—often only verbal—between the two parties. The Valuer-General for the time being —m cases where the occupancy is of an irregular characterallays requires proof before placing a person on the roll that he is entitled by law to do so. About three years ago I discussed the position of these "occupiers" with the late Valuer-General, who stated that he was bound by the Act and could only rict in accordance with its provisions. It was this barrier' that prevented these holders Wing rat-' ed, not the reasons you have alleged. The experience of the Clifton Council on this question has been the experience of other local bodies who have any considerable areas of native land in their districts, and it was to enable occupiers , of this class to be roped in that section 0 of the Rating Amendment Act, 1910— which has been repeated with parrotlike persistency in your columns—was passed into law. "if your contention , that these occupiers could have been dealt with under the Rating Act is correct, this clause is unnecessary and must be regarded as a superfluous piece of legislation. That you are entirely wron<' anv person who has any know-' ledge of the A.B.C. of the question will tell you. You state you "can name cases where rates have been proffered and the Council lias actually refused to take the money.'' In answer, I can only say that 1 have not before heard of any such cases. The county clerk also says lie has no knowledge of any offers to pay rates that he has not accepted. If you will furnish the names 1 will investigate, and let you know the result. You then hostilcly criticise the Council for not giving publicity of their intention of taking immediate action on the passing of the Rating Amendment Act, that they did not move until forced at the point of the bayonet to do so, and make other statements of a like character to bolster up the 1 position you lmve assumed. Why? 1 ask. Ought the Council to have rushed this business in the way you suggest? They took action in time to accomplish the object they had in view, the obtaining of a list of names of these occupiers to be sent to the Valuer-General for insertion on the rolls that are now being prepared. Unless you can show the so-called delay is going to prevent this being done, your statements are unfair and unwarranted. Personally, I hold the opinion that in the re-valuation of the county that has recently taken place it was the duty of the Valuation Department to place these "occupiers'' on the new roll, and but slight justification existed for the Council undertaking at considerable expense- and labor a work that ought to have been done by the Department. It was with this in view that I moved the resolution to the Valuer-General at the February meeting of the Council. If the new rolls did not contain the names of these "occupiers," then the Council could follow the advice given by the Under-Secretary to the Native Department and object to the rolls until their request was complied with, f confess to being curious to know why the valuer skipped this part of his work. However, this is digressing, so 1 will get back to your article, where, after stating that a list of these occupiers is to he forwarded to the Valuer-General, and for the first time these lands will . be subject to rating, you go on to slate: "Had the Council done their duty in the past there would have been no necessity for a toll-gate, the Council's finances would have been in a healthy state" — quite an ideal picture of what the county ought to be. And to think it has been lost through the ignorance and cupidity of the present Council. Unfortunately county councillors icannot hold the l'l- - among the clouds; tliev have to be practical, if they can, and in testing these statements bv cold facts I will assume that rates could, have been collected from these "occupiers'' in the past, and see if the result justifies the statement. The return recently furnished the Council by Mr. Walker'shows that twelve Europeans are occupying, or partially occupying, 957 acres of native land, nearly all of which is in the AAaihi riding. This riding has a further area of 1077 acres in the occupation of the natives, the total native land m the county being over 3f).llf)(l acres. The capital value of the !)87 acres being 10.003—which at l'/.d rate would, if all these persons could have been put on the roll, and all the rates collectedhave increased the county revenue by £(l3 3s 2d. If this sum could effect the changes you state, there would have to

be magic in it, us ten, aye, twenty times the amount in ordinary coin of the realm would not do it. Seriously, are the statements and ilinuendos that have been published in your columns on this matter either fair or honest comment on the action of the local body? Is it fair or honest journalism to lead ratepayers in this country, who, being unacquainted with the facts except what they see in the papers, to believe- that only for the wilful neglect of their members there was no necessity for the tollgate, and instead of poverty in the finances of the county there would have been affluence. I intended to cull a few blooms from the chaplets of your Tikorangi correspondent, but on examination find your articles are but an echo of his contributions. -So much is this the ease, that one might be forgiven for thinking they were penned by the same hand. There is perhaps one slight difference, as in your leaders credit is given the Council for Irving to have the native land made rateable, while in your correspondent's sight they are altogether bad.—l am, etc., J. W. FOREMAN. [The above is referred to in our leading columns.—Ed.]

CORONATION CLEMENCY. To the Editor. Sir,—"The quality of mercy is not strained." Kindly allow me a bri«f space ill which to urge the extension of clemency in this Coronation year to a New Zealand prisoner whose case should commend widespread sympathy in a Cpuritry where public opinion is "strongly against an influx of colored aliens. 1 refer to Lionel Terry, who has served over-five years'-imprisonment for shooting a Chinaman in Wellington on .September 24, 1905—a rash and wicked act, which lie committed for the purpose of emphasising the dangers that threatened our community from the presence of numbers of Asiatics in our midst. The act itself is indefensible; but at the present time, when men's minds are more alive to the Asiatic menace, the motive underlying the act must commend itself. I desire to say that 1 knew Terry for a considerable time before the date of his crime, and never detected any signs of criminality or insanity in liini—only a passionate conviction of the evils resulting from an admixture of white and colored races. I saw him a few months ago, at Sunnyside Mental Hospital, and despite all he has come through, found him as calm and rational as ever before. He gave me his positive assurance that, if liberated, he would at once leave New Zealand and never return. I am confident he will keep his word, and his release will not cause the slightest danger to anyone. I therefore ask you to kindly assist in obtaining his release by allowing a copy of the petition I enclose to lie at your public office for signature. Also, permit me to ask anyone interested to communicate with me, when' I shall have pleasure in providing further copies of the petition, to be exhibited in other places where signatures may be obtained. Thanking you in anticipation.—l am, etc., J. LIDDELL KELLY. Commercial Hotel, Ashburton.

BLIND ASYLUMS. To the Editor. Sir, —Some noble and benevolent person seems to have bequeathed a fabulous sum for the benefit of an impoverished priesthood. The same munificent philanthropist did not probably bestow on« sixpence on asylums for blind and mute children, not even on Dr. Barnardo's homes or any other humanitarian institute. The'asylum for blind, deaf and mute children, of Darlington, Sydney, X.S.W., Australia, is in arrears financially to the extent of some €3OO or £4OO, and although situated among rich merchants rolling in money, in the sunny land of millionaire squatters, Mr. lligg, the manager of the institute, is only too glad to receive subscriptions from outsiders of not more than five shillings (a modest half-crown probably not be despised),with the hope of keeping up the establishment for providing for and teaching the little blind ana mute mites. However laudable the custom of "Hospital Saturday" may be for collecting subscriptions in aid of the sick, an occasional Saturday given to obtaining subscriptions for the cause of the blind and dumb, might not be less meritorious. liven some decimal division of the Carnegie donations might not be wprse ■ employed in such directions as in supplying the public solely with unlimited libraries of exciting fiction. In observing tlie eyes of children born blind it might be discovered not infrequently that the "eye" itself is not defective, the cornea, retina, mucous, or pupil normal, the mischief being in the lack of or malformation of the "optic nerve," or of the nervous system connecting the visual organs with the brain, or in the brain itself. Some possible investigation with t.lie X-rays or radium rays might reveal the source of the deformity, and though remedy might be impossible, it mig.it be satisfactory to decide or aseor.aiit that which originated or induced the blindness. Possibly intemperance or excesses on the part of progenitors might'primarily at times occasion children being so afflicted.—l am, etc., C. W. WILSON. Fitzroy, June 15.