THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1893. THE CHEVIOT ESTATE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2449, 10 January 1893, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1893. THE CHEVIOT ESTATE.

A great deal of noise is being made at the present time in the columns of the Conservative organs concerning the purchase of the Cheviot estate. The Press does not scruple to denounce it as confiscation, repudiation, and spoliation, but that paper is getting to use words lately of which it does not seem to know the meaning. For instance, it called Sir Robert Stout lately “ the crapulous knight.” Now the meaning of the word “ crapulous ” is drunken, and as Sir Robert Stout 1 is a total abstainer it is evident the Press does not know the meaning of the term. In the same way it evidently does not know the meaning of the words “ confiscation ” or “ repudiation.” Confiscation means forfeiting to the State, without giving anything in return; repudiation means disowning all responsibility. But the Government must have done the opposite to these things in regard to the Cheviot estate. The history of the transaction is as follows :—The valuers appointed under the Land and Income Tax Act valued the estate, which consists of 85,603 acres, at £303,183, of which the improvements made up £45,983. The estate belonged to the late Ready-Money Robinson, and his trustees objected to the valuation at the Court of Review on the ground that it was worth only £260,220. There was therefore a difference of £42,963 between the valuation of the trustees and that of the public valuer, and the result was that the Board of Review upheld the valuation of the latter. They discussed the matter at great length, and adjourned until next day in order to think over it, but the only change they made was to raise the value of the improvements from £45,983 to £54,300. The trustees objected to this, and gave notice to the Government that they must take over the estate at the owners’ valuation or consent to reduce the value. The Government thereupon appointed other qualified valuers, with the result that the valuation of the Land Valuers was more than upheld. Not satisfied with this, they appointed second independent valuers, who still held that the land was worth the money. Now what could the Government do '? Here were the hectoring, blustering Trustees trying to bounce the Ministry into acquiescence in their views, while, at the same time, the properly-constituted legal authorities, supported by independent valuation, told them the valuation was right. Were they to yield to the bluster of the Trustees, or were they to compel the estate to bear its fair share of taxation ? They considered the matter carefully, and after mature consideration they decided to accept the offer of the owner and take over the estate. For this they are stigmatised as thieves and robbers, and accused of confiscation and repudiation in the Christchurch Press. The Trustees say : “ You can have it for £260,000.” The Government say : “Very well,” and the bargain is made. The Government gave the Trustees their own price, yet that is called confiscation. But there is no use in taking any notice of the senseless ravings which have appeared in the Press lately. The important question is : Have the Government done right in taking over the estate I In our opinion they have. In the first place, if they allowed themselves to be bullied in this way all large landowners would in future try the same thing, with the result that the revenue would fall short of realising the estimate. Their action in showing backbone enough to resist such bounce will have a splendid moral effect, aud prevent others from trying the same game in the future. Instead of the revenue losing by the transaction, therefore, we think it will gain in the end, but it is pleasant, at any rate, to find that the Land Tax has already exceeded the estimate considerably, notwithstanding the fact that no tax has been paid ou the Cheviot estate. Even if not a penny were ever paid in taxation by the Cheviot estate, the moral effect of the action of ' ' Ministry will more than make up for ° the price, which is as near R. Then as 1 leara that as possible £3 per acre, . . 0 . 25,000 acres is the finest land '-'aoteibury, worth about £ls an acre. Let us suppose it is only worth £lO an acre, it will practically pay for the whole block, and the Government will have over 60,000 acres for nothing, or next door to it. That at least must be worth £2 an acre, so there is £120,000 of clear profit on the transaction. No doubt a large sum will be required to cut up the land and make roads through it, but that it will more than for itself is certain. Then if we consider the desirability of breaking up lai ge estates, and the demand there is for laud in Canterbury, it must be regarded as a blessing that this laud fell so easily into the hands of the Government. To be sure it would have been much better if it had been more accessable, but no doubt improvements will be made in the means; of l communication with it. There is already a harbor there, where steamers call, but some of the land is far distant from that, and roads must be made. We congratulate the Government ou their pluck and courage, and we have no doubt that they will be supported by the whole strength of the Liberal party throughout the colony.