WEST COAST NATIVE RESERVES

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 277, 20 May 1912, Page 7

WEST COAST NATIVE RESERVES

COMMISSION AT OPUNAKE. The Royal Commission of Inquiry sat in the Courthouse, Opunake, on Wednesday. Dr. McArthur, chairman, and Mr. W. Kerr, S.M.'s commissioners. Mr. R. D. Welsh appeared on behalf of the European lessees, and Mr. W. H. D. Bell appeared for the native owners. Mr. Welsh called Mr. T. P. Hughson, who deposed that he and his cousin took up section 19, block 5, ('ape Survey District, under the Act of 1881. It contained 122 acres, and the rental was 3s per acre. The land was covered with tutu, flax, and fern, and some light bush. He understood it was for a term of 30 years, that at the end of the term it would be put up by auction, and tk&t all improvements would be paid up to £5 per acre. Two years after taking it up his brother bought his cousin's interest out. He and his brother remained in occupation for four or five years. Things then got so bad that his brother left, and gave up bis share. The land was farmed in the ordinary way, and was also used for dairying. He was not now living on it, but had a family milking it on shares. He had lived on it till the last ten years. He never sublet it. He had ploughed and grassed it except five acres. Had fenced and subdivided it. Had built a good 'house, sheds, etc., on it. He valued his improvements roughly at £5 10s per acre. He became aware in 1893 that there was a right to convert it into a new lease. He inquired re conditions, and 1 looked into the matter carefully, and considered his own circumstances, but could not see his way clear to finance the conversion. He estimated roughly it would cost him nearly £2OO. Was then not aware there was any provision to spread payment over a number of' years. Had no recollection of being informed that any subsequent right was given to convert. It was news to him when recently he was informed that there had been three opportunities to convert. Had he been aware in 1000 that he could have converted, be would then have done "so,. since lie knew the terms; There are lands on the inland side of the road practically occupied by the natives. In the village of his leasehold there -are' about 50>0 acres, which several Maoris occupy. He holds a sub-lease from the Maoris of 20 acres. He now asked for the right to come in under the Act of 1802, and was prepared to pay in accordance with the Bill brought down. Mr. Kerr: Would'you be prepared to pav on a re-valuation made now? 1

Mr. ITughson: Yes, if it was on a fair basis. Cross-examined by Mr. Bell: When he took up the lease he understood conditions and terms. When the 1881 Act was brought down there a promise given that further legislation would be passed leading to a freehold, and that although there were defects in the lease, they would be. put .right. He knew that the lease at the expiration of the term would be put up. They were not satisfied with the leases, and, owing to the persistency of complaints, the 1892 Act was brought in. Considering the circumstances when they took up the laild, he considered the natives had the best,,pf the bargain. It would have paid tTift natives jto (have given the for I nothing, considering the value put oil the remaining lands by construction of roads, factories, etc.. j j

Dr. McArthur: Do you considerj that argument would hold good if the lands in question' belonged to the pakeh,a? Mr. Hughson: Yes. •' Mr. Bell: Knowing the limit was £fi per acre, why did you put on £5 10s ? Mr. ITughson: -Had to put on lextra improvements, or be brought to] task by the. • Agricultural Department under the Dairy Act. Ilis grievance now was tlmt he had one chance l-> < " .; ■ lie was aware of, whilst he now learned there were two others, and he thought it only right lie should have aijother one. One third of the rent had 1 been rebated for live years. This was a;bene.fit- to the nati'ves-, as, if the rebate had not been granted, it meant bankruptcy for -many.' and' the - lai\tls-. \vou,kl j haye been deserted,- and there would be no revenue for the natives. j

Mr. E. J. Dudley deposed Unit lip was lessee of section 45, block 9, O.S.D.j, containing 10 acres, which was leased under the 1881 Act. In 1891 he bought it: from Mr. J. Pennington. The rent was 3s per acre. The improvements consisted of grassing and fencing, worth probably £<SO. Pennington sold sections 4(j, 47, and 48 to Mr. Geo. W. Rogers, reserving the right of occupation of section 46. Witness purchased Pennington's interest in section 4(i, but it -had never been transferred. Mr. W. "C. Dudley had purchased section's '4G, 47, and 48, and they had both applied to the Public Trustee to surrender their- leases and take out new leases, but the Public Trustee would not agi\ e. He valued the improvements on section 40, consisting of house, sheds, grassing, and fencing, at about £3OO. He was aware at t'he end of 1892 that there was a right given to convert to a new lease, and he made inquiries from the then Reserves Agent, Mr. Rennell, but found that his financial position precluded him from doing it. Had not been, aware of any subsequent right of conversion. Had lie known of the right in 1900 he Would' have converted section 45, but not section 46.

By Mr. Bell: As consideration when lie'bought from Mr. Pennington he paid' him £4O cash and took orr a mortgage of £IOO. As far as he knew section 46 had never been transfi rred to him. He knew of the £5 per acre limit when he first took up land under the 1881 Act on the Eltham road.

John Clarke deposed that he held a lease of section 20, block 5, Cape S.D., at Okato, of 125 acres, at 3s per acre. He bought it from Mr. W. J. Grey and paid £550. He had read the lease before completing the purchase, and gathered from it that he was to be paid for all improvements, and that at the end of the term of lease it was to be put up to public tender. He entered into possession 6h January 2, 1899. When he bought he valued the improvements at £3OO. At the present time he valued the improvements at £7OO. Had never heard of the right of conversion. Grey did not inform him of any such right. Had not received any circular from the Public Trustee drawing his attention to such a right. He most decidedly would have converted 1 in 1900 'had lie known of such an option.

By Mr. Bell: It was only just lately that he knew the limit of improvements was only £5 per acre. After the luncheon adjournment Mr. Welsh stated that he did not intend calling any further witnesses. The Commissioners informed any others, who were not represented by counsel, that if they wished to give evidence thev could now do so.

As there was no response the chairman then adjourned the Commission to New Plymouth.—Opunakc Times.

sitttnt; at >ttcw Plymouth. INTERESTING' OTCOPS-ENAMTNATTON There was a sitting of the West Toast Leases Commission at New Plymouth on Saturday morning. Dr. MeArtluir, S.M.. presided, and with him was Mr. W. Kerr, S.M. The first witness called was Mr. J. J. Elwin, who wets instrumental in getting

the Act of 1802 passed, and who was chairman of the West Coast League, which was in existence at the time.

In offering no objection to the lessees calling Mr. Elwin, Mr. W. H. D. Bell, K.C., who is appearing on behalf of the natives, remarked that Mr. IVelsh, who represents the lessees, had eaid he was going to call "typical" evidence, but if that which he had called was the best lie could produce, then he (Mr. Bell) considered it did not say mucil for his case.

Mr. Elwin deposed that ihe was a farmer, residing at present at New Plymouth. He held a lease of 500 acres at Warea, under the Act of 1881, at a rental of 3s per acre. In 1896 he conVerted that lease, and was now paying 3s 10y 2 d per acre. He had sub-leased the land at 12s Gd an acre, but still held the original lease. In 1892, when the new leases came into operation, two persons came to his farm for the purpose of making a valuation, one acting on hehalf of the Europeans and the other in the interests of the natives. In witness' opinion they objected to giving him value for a very reasonable amount of improvement, and lie, therefore, resolved that it would be better to let the whole thing go and' not convert.

In answer to Mr. Kerr, Mr. Elwin said that the lessees did not have any copy of the regulations issued under the lease of 1881, which he believed were compiled later. The regulations did not stipulate that compensation was limited to £5 per acre. In contradicting witness on this point, the chairman quoted regulation 30, dealing with this question, which stated that no improvements should be allowed for in any valuation' beyond £~> an acre on rural land and £lO for subUrban land.

Replying to the Commissioners, Mr. Elwin gave as his reason for not converting- in 1802. the great cost which conversion would have run into. It cost him, when he did convert, over £IOO. This amount included the difference in rent of -3s and 3s 10% d. His own valuation of his improvements was £2BOO. • The rest of witness' evidence was mainly confined to a cross-examination by Mr. Bell regarding a letter, on the subject of the leases, which had appeared under Mr. Elwin's name in a New Plymouth newspaper. .-At the.outset Mr. Bell asked witness what grounds he had for therein stating that, "when in 1881 the native lands on the West Coast were vested in the Public Trustee for administration for the benefit of the natives, it was after their condition and ability to live on lands reserved for their use had 1 been ascertained"; and, further, for saying, "and it was distinctly understood that as far as these leased reserves were concerned they passed absolutely, entirely; and for ever from the possibility of occupation by those for whom the Public Trustee was acting."

In answer to the first question, witness- remarked: "It was current opinion at the time," and with regard to the latter (fuery, he stated that he had understood' what he had stated from Mr. Rennell, who had also explained it to some of the natives.

To.'this Mr. Bell replied as follows: "And yet the lands were vested in the Public Trustee to be administered for the benefit ■of the natives. Reverting to yOur letter, you say, 'This being so. the desire: o? .the indolent half-breed to acquire .the .well-tilled productive home of the industrious settler should have no standing either in law or equity.' Your present..position is that you pay a rent of something like £7O, and draw from the sub-lessee, to whom vou have leased the land,, £218."

M*. . Elvvin replied that that was so, toiftvhich, Mr. Bell rejoined: "You are leasing lahds owned by the natives, and •wjiicl). .without you doing a hand's turn, bring ydu in a. profit of £l4B, and you 'talk'abftiit the indolent half-breed having no standing either in law or equity." Witnessreplied that counsel 'forgot the state of the land when he took it up. 'He was only getting payment now fov, the years of hard work for which' he had 1 got nothing. Questioned by the chairman, witness ■replip.d 'that when he took up his lease the Iftiid was mostly swamp, flax, fern, and.sfc'rub, and in answer to Mr. Bell he further explained that" there'was a |. considerable' portion of flax, all of which he burned. There were flax mills, hut •his fldx had, gone before they were j.started. A number of .settlers had sold their flax, but it cost as much to get I it to the mills as they got for it. I Reverting to witness' newspaper correspondence, Mr. Bell remarked: "You say |the introduction of the question of , lequirements of native owners is simply [re-openjng a matter settled by the passi ing of the West Coast Settlements Act. j 1881, and is absurd in view of the desolate and unprofitable manipulation ini dulgcd in by those natives who are in occupation of their allocated holdings.' Are you aware that a considerable number oi natives are working their land just as profitably as the white man 1" : • Mr. Elwin replied that he quite believed so, and Mr. Bell questioned him further regarding his knowledge of the improvements being limited to £5, to which witness admitted that he believed it was stated, on the map at the time he took up his lease. Concluding, Mr. Bell remarked: "You found you had not made such a, good bargain as you thought you had."" •-Witness replied that counsel could put it that way if he liked. At this juncture the lessees from the Waitara district had not yet attended, and the Commission was adjourned till to-day.