The Daily News. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1911. WEST COAST LEASES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 136, 30 November 1911, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1911. WEST COAST LEASES.

Our local contemporary has recently be«n devoting some attention to the W'cst Coast Settlement leases. In its issue of the 20th inst. it wrote a column and a-half on the subject, winding up with a note subsequently attached which nullified its arguments, founded, as they were, and as it admitted, on a misconception. Xotwibhstanding this egregious' blunder, it returned to the matter on Monday for the purpose of making political capital out of it, and damaging the Hon. T. Mackenzie's candidature for the Egmont district, in which most of the leaseholders with a grievance reside. It complains of the treatment of the latter by the Government. who it . alleges is working against the interests of the leaseholders. That this is a clear case of misrepresentation we will have no difficulty in showing . In 1892 an Act was passed giving holders of the 1881 West Coast Settlement leases the opportunity of exchanging their tenure for perpetual leases with re-valuations every 21 ycara and compensation for all improvements in ease of transference. A revaluation of their holdings was made at the time of issue of these new leases, and the holders paid rent for the unexpired portion of their lease on the new valuation accordingly. A section of the holders did not take advantage of the provision to convert in tlie prescribed time, and the Government subsequently extended the period till l!)0O to enable iheni to do so. Still several holders perferred remaining under the original tenure to paying the increased rental under the new lease even with all its advantages. It is this section of holders that is now dissatisfied and endeavoring to obtain new leases on terms similar to those under the 1802 Att. About three years ago some of the leases granted under the Act of ISBI were Hearing the end of their terms. Difficulties and doubts had arisen in the const ruction of these leases, and eventually the Public Trustee brought a test action (known as Tinkler's ease) in the Supreme Court for the purpose lit" determining these questions. The effect was that if the lessee failed in acquiring the new lease that he was to be paid for the improvements, but land tlris w :l » the rub) limited in character to buildings, fixtures and fences only, and limited in amount not in excess of per acre. This was unjust to the lessees, and in the Xative Claims Adjustment Act of last year (section •() this was remedied by the Government -i' flint when the lease* expire, us they will in the course of a couple of yeai-. tin' bidders will gel, compensation for all improvements, clearing. Jgrassing, stumping, plantations, etc., up to £5 an acre The terms of the

1&8 L lease were, however, in no other ■way altered'. The lessees now say that to offer the new lease for sale at the end of their term is totally inequitable to themselves and quite opposed to tlie true settlement of the landl, and desire the same right to convert their leases under the Act of ISO 3 as existed up to the year 1000, and subject to the same terms whereunder lessees could convert up to that year. If they are brought under this Act they will have an indisputable right of renewal, in which ease they will have to pay to the Public Trustee the difference between therent paid by them from the year 19010 to the date of their obtaining their new leases! and the rent which would have been paid by the lessees between the same dates if they had obtained their new leases in 1900; also paying the Public Trustee for the value' of all improvements in excess of £5 per acre. This amount capitalised would probably run into a pretty big figure. Negotiations proceeded some time ago between the leaseholders anil the Public Trustee, and, as a result, a Bill acceptable to both parties was drafted and submitted to Cabinet, who have not yet sent it on to Parliament. The Herald says: "If it (tho Bill) cam be blocked in the same way next year tlie tenants Will find their improvements in a great measure confiscated when their leases expire in 1913." Had the demands been conceded last session it would have provided substantial grounds for the election cry of "tammanyism," "bribery and corruption," "vote-catching," etc., better grounds than ever the Mokau deal presented. But there are other features Cabinet have to consider respecting the West Coast Settlement .leases,features which our contemporary has not alluded to. There is another class besides the. lessees we have just been discussing who claim' special relief. They are the purchasers who purchased under the belief that they were acquiring all improvements without limitation. They are equally deserving of consideration. The present value of the West Coast Settlement lands has undoubtedly been largely created by the "enterprise and industry of th? pakeha community, by the very holders of these [ Maori leases, in causing roads to be made and maintained at a great cost (some lessees are paying several special rates on top of general rates), creameries and factories built, etc. Now, is.it not right that this value should be taken into consideration in ■fixing compensation for improvements and renewals of leases? We hold that it should, and, wliai; is more, believe the Government will not overlook this aspect when dealing with the matter. That the Government is not nntagonisiic to the interests of the leaseholders is eh own by their past attitude, first of all in giving every opportunity to holders of converting; ire passing the special pro(vision enabling holders getting compensation for their improvements; and in offering to set up a commission to enquire into the whole matter of the leases. Tho Herald says that this matter will play an. important part in the Egmont election, "perhaps to the extent of turning the. scale m favor 'of Mr. Dive," but if leaseholders consider the whole facts of the case and the straightforward part the Government has played in regard to them, the scale will be turned in favor of the Minister who strongly advocates the holding of the commission and investigating the claims of lessees, and giving .relief to those entitled' to it. On the other hand, Mr. Dive opposes the commission arid thinks he can get redress by a frontal attack, which is one of the higgest mistakes he ever made. It is a fair case for a commission ami we believe Mr. Mackenzie would see that lessees would receive the representation, on such a commission to which they are entitled.