The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, MAY 26, 1888. THE AROWHENUA FENCES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1742, 26 May 1888, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, MAY 26, 1888. THE AROWHENUA FENCES.

The (expressed determination of the Ardwhenu'a Town Board ,/fco have certain fences within the township destroyed has led us to inquire into the whole dispute. The. story ' of the erection of the fences is'as follows On the 3rd of November, 1886, Mr J; H. Baker, Commissioner bf Crown Lands, called by public advertisement a meeting of the holders of deferredpayment sections in. the township of Arowhenua, for the purpose of arranging with -him as to the best way in which their holdings could be enlarged. The meeting was held in the Eesident Magistrate’s Court,. Temuka, and was largely ; attended, and Mr Baker explained its object. He said the Government intended to enlarge the holdings of the sellers, and he suggested that those having sections contigupus to the creek should take up the pieces of land lying between them and the,‘creek, add that those, who were not near the creek would be provided with sections in other parts of the /tbwn. He / also intimated that each applicant ! would get only one section, so that those whotook up the creek sections could not get sections elsewhere/. . The meetrhg. gladly ap.

proved of Air Baber’s proposals, and at his invitation about 30 persons there and then applied for sections, and selected such as they desired to have. Some of the applicants asked Mr Baber when they could get possession of them, and he; replied that he would send a surveyor to lay out the land immediately, and tbat.as soon as the survey was completed they coul 1 fence them in. The next week a Q-overnmeut surveyor was at wqrk.in surveying the land, and he showed the settlers where they were t«.*erect their fences, and on the strength of these representations most of them fenced in their newly-acquired possessions. From that day to this they have received no official notice that their arrangement with Mr Baker had been cancelled. Some of them have frequently applied to the Laud Office, and have been told that the subject was still under the consideration of the fOovernment. They 'have, however, heard it whispered, that some influence was at work to'deprive them of the sections, but they have never been able to obtain any definite information on this head., It.is, therefore, : by no means wonderful that they were astonished when- the ! Town Board signified its- intention < of; destroying the fences, and it is surprising too, to others besides the settlers, that the Board has undertaken ,to do' so. A deputation of the settlers has waited on the Board, and asked by what authority they ordered the fences to. be destroyed. The Board declined to give the required information, but persisted in threatening to enforce their order. If the land has been by any underhand means vested in the Board they ought to . make that fact known', as it would end all the dispute. The settlers have doubtless too much sense to resist the law. If, on the other hand, the land has not been vested in . the Board, their action is unwarrantable, They have no right whatsoever to interfere with the fences except where they are erected across streets. However, in the absence of more definite information as to the authority on which the Board is acting, We shall suspend comment on that head for the present. In any case the settlers have a very serious grievance. They were given the option of enlarging their holdings, ! and by taking the creek sections they shut themselves but from getting sections elsewhere. 1 Now when the creek- sections are taken away from them they will: stand’ in an invidious position as compared with those who at the time selected: sections in other parts of the town. Their neighbors have had their holdings whilst they, through having taken'the creek, sections, find they have missed the opportunity of extending their holdings through no fault of their-own. They .hare,’.too, gone to expense!which they,; can ill afford in erecting thesb fences, and it is certainly hard on them ‘to he compelled to pull them down again without a penny compensation for their loss. On the whole, we ? think that" there is something-to befurther plained in the transaction; - It is, not right that poor people should be thus dupbd,’ hud if the Government has determined on depriving them of the sections, in ; all justice it; ought toallow them compensation for the' -fences. : ‘