SOLDIER SETTLERS.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 December 1922, Page 3

SOLDIER SETTLERS.

CANDIDATES’ CONTROVERSY. STATEMENT BY MR, BELLRINGER. Mr. Bellringer, in his speech at New Plymouth on Friday night, defended the Government’s action in settling returned soldiers on the land, and said the majority of the soldiers were pleased with the way they had ibeen treated. Regarding the ease where a soldier, who had married, a nurse in England, and who, according to Mr. Smith, was turned off his farm, (he said he had. the facts, and they showed that the man had been more than fairly treated. He enumerated the facts. The soldier had come to the Land Board in April, 1921, and said he had bought the farm for a Tittle over £4OOO, at the same time applying for a loan of £2500. The board considered the price too high, but the soldier stated that if he did not complete he would lose a deposit of £BOO. Yielding to the man’s solicitations, the board obtained a farmer to value the property, and his valuation was £2BBO. The board again advised the soldier against taking the place, but, at his urgent request, they had another valuation made by a neighboring farmer, h'is valuation being £4160. Under pressure from the man, the board advanced £-2500, and a further £750 to buy stock. At the outset the man gave the board an order for 25 per cent, of his milk cheque, but right through the season it never collected a penny, agreeing to the soldier’s request that it should not do so. On October 14, 1922, the soldier signed an undertaking to give the board an order for half of his‘ milk cheques in order that some of the arrears should be wiped out. That order, however, was not given. -Shortly afterwards the soldier telephoned to the board that he was leaving the farm, and two representatives of the board went out to urge him to stay, at the same time pointing out that the department would stick to him, but the soldier had said that he would not take the place as a gift. During the whole time he was on the farm he never paid rhe Government one penny as interest or sinking fund on the loan of £2500. All he paid was £ll 10s in respect to the loan of £750, or £ll 10s on a total of £3300. That was fair enough treatment, said Mr. Bellringer, and anybody who wanted more would be hard to satisfy. STATEMENT BY MR. -SMITH. Both at his Omata and Frankley Road meetings on Saturday night Mr. S. G. Smith dealt with what he termed “Mr. Bellringer’s trumped up charges against the speaker, that when referring to the case of a soldier who had walked off his farm at Oaonui, that an unfair attack had been made upon members of the Lands Department. Mr. -Smith emphatically denied that ho had #nade any such attack. Mr. Smith said that quite recently a soldier and his wife had interviewed him, and this was the story they told. The soldier purchased a farm at Oaonui and Was granted an advance from the Government of £2500. The soldier found £BOO and the balance was arranged by a well-known Hawera eitien. ” From his 30 cows last year he had taken 70001 b. butter-fat, and during the same period he had - paid £385 off his debts. The interest on -his second mortgage was paid up and ’he did not owe the tradesmen anything. He was, however, one year's interest in arrears with the Government and they had demanded an order for 50 per cent, of his milk cheque, but he pointed out that the dairy company already had an order for 25 per cent, of the milk cheque and to comply with the department’s request meant that he would not be able to carry on. He was pressed to sign and it was indicated to him that failure to do so might involve other action, resulting in selling up. He went home and thought the matter over and came to the conclusion that either way meant ruination, so he decided to walk off and notified the office to that effect. “I told the soldier frankly he had made a mistake in walking off,” added Mr. Smith. “The Wife of the soldier then said that she was a trained nurse, and had qualified in one of the largest hospitals in London, and had served during the war. She married a New Zealand soldier and had no misconceptions as to the conditions in this country. She had worked on the farm, had assisted to milk the 30 cows, frequently took the milk to the factory, had -grubbed gorse, trimmed boxthorn hedges, and did the work on the farm that a man would do. They had both toiled Very hard to succeed, and when she walked off the farm on Saturday she did so with a broken heart. Her feeling of resentment against the treat* inent they had received was so great that s-he felt that if she were in the district and a candidate was standing in the Massey interest and another as a Bolshevik she would support the Bob shevik!”

Mr. Smith added: “This, is the story I told at the Empire Theatre, and I added that if these were the facts of the case enquiry should be made, and reference to the Daily News report of my speech will show that is what 1 said. The Lands Department in Taranaki had done their best for rhe soldiers, but they coußl not do anything without reference to Wellington There is the case, and you will readily see t-liat there is not the slightest ground for Mr. Bellringer’s attack and his charges fall to the ground.” All the evidence, he concluded, went to show that the soldier and his wife were »ood settlers and worked hard, and one good year would have made a great difference in their pos'ition, but to suggest because he mentioned the matter publicly ’he was making an attack on Government officials who could not reply was the very essence of absurdity.