WEST COAST RESERVES

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 286, 30 May 1912, Page 8

WEST COAST RESERVES

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY. SITTING AT HAWERA. The Commission resumed its sittings in Hawera on Tuesday, when further evidence was heard in the case for the natives. Tamaka Awarua, residing at Taiporohenui, said he held 61 acres under occupation license and paid £ll or more for the license. He was the owner of land under the West Coast Acts of 1881 and 1892. He was working and milking on the 61 acres. He sent the milk to the Tawhiti factory, and received £513 9s for the year. He held another 43 acres under the West Coast Act, which belonged to his mother and younger brothers.

Mr. Bell: Why did you start milking before Te Whiti died?— Because I found that my people were so wrapped up in Te Whiti and obeyed him in everything, and I was afraid of being swept into the tide.

Replying to further questions, witness said that when he started milking again he had assistance from, his pakeha friends. There were noxious weeds on the place when he started milking a second time, hut these had since been cleared away. He also cultivated his farm. Maoris, worked for him on shares.

Rangitaura Kahui, who lived at Waitara, said he held 4% acres in the Raukuku block. He once lived on the land there, but as his wife said they could not make a living on it they had better live on her land of 77 acres in Waitara, of which there were really five owners. His wife and mother were the principal owners. He was milking on this land, and handed in a statement giving particulars of his factory cheques. In addition to the 77 acres he leased five acres.

Bo you occupy that, together with the 77 acres?— Yes. They are only a few chains apart. How did you get the money to buv your cows ?—At first I worked on the roads and saved sufficient money to buy 17 cows; then I applied to the factory that they should pay foj eleven cows for me, the price being £6O, and I gave my seventeen cows as security. Under that mortgage you are to give the factory half of your milk cheque? —Yes. That was the written arrangement, hut in my desire to pay it off I gave them the whole of the monev. Do you know a man named Elwin?— Yes.

He told the Commissioners at New Plymouth that he had burned his flax. Is that true ?—No, it is not. He added that Oorbett and Kelly bought the flax from Elwin, and he (witness) and others assisted in cutting It. Mr. Welsh: Is the 25 acres and 77 acres the only land you own. Do you pay the owner anything for the 77 acres ?—He explained that all the family were living with him. Eaniera Karena said he owned 40 acres at Bell Block, which was freehold. I think you leased your land to a pakeha?-—Yes,

How did you lease it ?—For 21 years. It had eight years to run. Why did you Lease it to the pakeha? —So that the lessee could stump it. And what rent did you charge him ? —Three shillings per acre. Why didn't you improve the land yourself ?—I had plenty of work to do. and besides my children were not grown up. Are you a beneficiary under the grants of 1881 ?—I think so.

Manu-a-rupe said he resided at Waihi, near Waitara, where he farmed 170 acres. It was not his land, but he held it as trustee for his children. Some of the land he got 10 years ago, another portion 8% years ago, and another portion 5 years ago. He had improved the farm.

What is the condition of the farm now ?—lt is one of the best in the district.

How many cows have you ?—Sixty. How do you milk them ?—By the ma chine.

How long have you been milking ? Orer six years.

What does your milk cheque run to per month ? £SO. I would get this for two or three months. I had received, a bonus of £SO for last year. The witness also explained that he held other lands on behalf of one of the tribes, which he had improved. I understand you to say you have" held some 200 acres for fo'ur'years ? Between four and five. Do I understand you to say you will ■ hand back that land to the tribe without penalty ?—When I have received the money from the land I have expended on it (I am nearly compensated), I will return it to them.

Then on payment of the £IOO hv the tribe you will be prepared ts hand badc thc land 7—Yes. if T received £IOO T would return the land to the tribe.

Te Pohunga Tumaroroa pave evidence of owning land. 100 acres of which were held by his mother, and 90 acres of which was held by him. He used the land_ for dairying purposes. Kiri, residing at Okaiawa, deposed to having leased three different areas at Okaiawa, which he had improved to the extent of £4 per acre, and which he had used for milking. It had reverted to the original native owners, who intended to go in for milking. Morere Whatitiri gave evidence of having land at Kaipakopako, which he had worked.

The Commission adjourned at '4 o clock until this morning.—Star.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE'S EVIDENCE. Dr. Fitchett, in giving evidence before the Commission at Hawera. stated: All the facts must be looked clearly in the face. The question is whether the native can get on this land, and, if so, can he profitably work it. He can only get on it in the beaten way of purchase —by outbidding the European. The present lessee has a right by contract

that no Parliament could, for a, moment think of breaking. The abstract right to bid is futile unless the means to bid effectually are given. The only native* who can outbid the pakeha in any specific lease are those who are entitled to the rent of that lease, for with them the rent will be merely a cross The number is very small. In every other case the native must have the money to pay the rent he bids. Moreover, in «very case the outgoing lease* must be paid £5 an acre for his improvements. I think it is common ground that there is no lease under which at least the improvements do not to-day reach £5 per acre. And that i» not all; they must also have funds to work that land, to provide plant, herds, and so forth. Last, but not least, they must have the industry, energy, and skill to 'maintain the. land in its present high state of cultivation. Failing this disaster must follow. Unless some effective financial scheme i« devised, I see nothing to be gained by denying to the lesses the Tight to convert. Taking the two tenures one with the other, I think there is no question that settlement is beet promoted by the second—the converted lease. The disadvantages of the old system are many. At least two years before the end of his lease, the lessee gets unsettled as to whether ha will get a renewal. He does not carry on his work with energy, because he may never receive the benefit of it; the edge of husabndry is dulled. Then there is the risk of having to pay an excessive rent. It is not good for the country that tenants should be rack-rented—a' rack-rented property is a property on the way to wreck. A fair rent only is what should be expected. Under the second tenure the tenant is encouraged to put all his energy into the place, for he i 3 assured of a perpetual renewal at a fair rent. This is hetter for the country, better for the district, better for the tenant, better fof the land, and better in this case for the Maori, evcept in so far as his immediate rent ii concerned.