MR JOHNS AND THE LIBERAL ADMINISTRATION.

Waikato Argus, Volume VII, Issue 519, 28 November 1899, Page 3

MR JOHNS AND THE LIBERAL ADMINISTRATION.

to the editor. Sir, —Mr W. Johns has apparently not seen the necessity for correcting the misquotations contained in his lettir and referred to in my last note, may I ask you to reprint the following extract from my previous note, and also Mr Johns' revised version of the same. What Mr Shepherd did say : "It is astonishing that settlers should be asked to support a Government, the principal feature of whose administration has been the addition of further bur (It us upon the backs of all connected with agriculture for the avowed purpose of benefiting the city artisans and Unionists.'' The revised version says : "It is astonishing that farmers should be asked to support a Government that has done nought but heap grievous burdens upon them," I need scarcely point out that the meaning conveyed by these two paragraphs is widely different', and as I have never upon any occision characterised the whole of the legislation passed by the present Government as being injurious, either to farmers or the colony, I naturally object to being placed in the position of having done so. We will now with your permission, Mr Editor, turn to the consideration of some of the points raised in Mr Johns' first letter, taking as the most important in their influence upon ourselves and the colony generally the " Administration of Lands" and the incidence of " Customs taxation," particularly upon the necessaries of life.

In dealing with the first-named, I would ask Mr Johns to walk from his comfortable home at Te Rahu to the summit of the nearest hill and from there glance over the extensive region lying south of the Puniu river and generally known as the King Country. Here we have an object lesson in the land administration of the present Government. It is not some mere hearsay or newspaper article about Pomohaka, Cheviot, or other distant matter of which we can only judge by repute, or upon statements probably eoloured by partisanship, but an actual fact, lying under the notice and before the eyes of every resident iu Waikato. Here is an immense tract of fertile land, the occupation and settlement of which would have revolutionised the progress of Waikato and of Auckland, kept locked up from occupation by Europeans and practically from settlement by the native owners themselves, in shcrt "a dog in the 'manger " policy which is probably unparalleled in the history of colonisation in any part of the world. The plea is put forth by tho Government that the interests of the natives are being conserved as if given free-trade in their lands, they would become landless paupers upon the State. Bui[even if this could apply to the sale it could have no weight as against the natives leasing their lands, and which would have been, to a great extent, acceptable to both natives and Europeans. We hear a good deal at times of the affluence and comfort enjoyed by the East Coast and Hawkes' Bay natives, and which we hear is derived chiefly from the rental of .their lands to Europeans, but which, fortunately for them—must have taken place before a Liberal Ministry came to office. Our King Country natives might have been as coinfortab'e and independent to-day had they been permitted to lease their land in the same manner and tlie benefit to Waikato would have been incalculable. What comparison can there be in the public gain between establishing a few small village settlements here and there, the ultimate success of which admitting that the intention is good—is yet far from certain—with that of throwing open for vigorous settlement the hundreds of thousands of acres contained in tho King Country, Tho utter incapacity of the Liberal administration, when dealing with the lauds question, is here shown in a manner which leaves no room for .mistake or di-putc, and the result has been comparative stagnation to Waikato, and loss to the colony in imports and experts. This land policy, if it may be dignified by that term, has been simply disastrous to the natives, who—forced by their necessities—have been compelled to part bit by bit and share by share, with the fee simple of their lands to the Government, the only buyer, for a pittance less than a quarter of what such lauds would have brought in tho open market. I ask any reasonable man, I ask Mr Johns himself, what can bo the only possible verdict passed upon a lands administration of which this is a sample ? For the consideration of the more important question of Customs taxation, 1 will ask for space in your next issue.—l am, etc., E, C. Shepherd,