49

C—9a,

Westland. 28th March, 1923. In accordance with instructions received here on the 30th October, 1922, I forward herewith the Board of Inquiry report. The report was discussed by the Land Board with the Board of Inquiry at the Land Board's meeting on the 21st ultimo and finally considered at the monthly meeting on the 21st instant. The, Inquiry Board, as you will see, has investigated and reported on. twenty-four individual cases. The Land Board generally concurs with the report, but in the cases of the following soldier settlers it makes the special recommendations given opposite each soldier settler's name [not printed]. W. T. Morpeth, Commissioner of Crown Lands. The Under-Secretary for Lands, Wellington. Canterbury. 29th June, 1923. I beg to forward herewith, the general report of the Board, of Inquiry after its consideration by the Land Board on the 28th instant. At that meeting the following resolution was passed on the motion of Mr. R. Macaulay (senior member), seconded by Mr. W. Cunningham : " That, having received and fully discussed the Inquiry Board's report on soldier-settlement in Canterbury, this Board resolves to receive the same and transmit it to the Hon. Minister of Lands, being of opinion that it is of a comprehensive nature, also a fair statement of the position generally so far as this district is concerned, and that if concessions generally on the lines of the detailed recommendations in the report are ultimately adopted the relief thus afforded the individual soldier settler will meet the circumstances of the case in this district." It will be noticed that in many, or most, of the cases considered the Inquiry Board is of the opinion that concessions varying with the circumstances of each individual case should be made, but with the condition that where either second and following mortgagees, or stock and agency companies supplying stock, are also concerned, that these latter should also make concessions. In a few cases, in " section 2 " farms, we have found that the submortgagee's interest has been paid, but that of the Crown, although supposedly a first charge, has not been met. In cases where the submortgagee is the original vendor and the reduced price recommended falls below the, Government advance I am of the opinion that if the submortgagee will not write off his mortgage the property should be put up to auction on fair terms, and if bought in by the Crown might again be allotted to the soldier if it is considered that he has worked to good advantage. In cases where the Government mortgage is only such proportion of the value that the reduced price would still leave a margin for the submortgagee, I think that any Government concession should be conditional on the second mortgagee granting concessions in interest in proportion to the Crown's remissions of interest, or otherwise the property should go to sale : this should apply, mutatis mutandis, to cases of settlement or other lands where goodwills have been paid for leaseholds. I think the reasons why the various Boards generally recommended advances with a margin, more or less, was because it was felt that a fall in values might occur, and that this was acquiesced in by the submortgagees as an ordinary business precaution and one involving risk to themselves. The hard cases will be where the soldier himself provided the difference ; but even in this case it is a thing that cannot be helped, and the soldier should accept the position in the same way that any other person has to. In the case of settlement lands opened for soldiers, any reduction would, of course, fall on the Crown, but this is the case now where settlement tenants apply for and obtain a reduction in valuation, and the present conditions for ordinary settlement lands might apply with any necessary modifications. Another difficulty that presents itself very largely in this district is in instances where soldiers have been financed for stock by the stock and agency companies, and where, on account of operations not proving profitable, the Department has been able to collect little or no rent from the companies. In some cases the Crown is providing not only the land but in a few cases even the working-equipment also, and the companies are controlling the proceeds but will pay no rent, or only very little, underpressure. Many of these instances are in cases where the Government, advance was insufficient to stock the place and it was better that the soldier should be assisted elsewhere. In such cases any reduction in interest and rent —and this is also recommended by the Board of Inquiry—should be conditional on the companies making a proportional reduction in their interest charges, which are higher than those of the Crown, and possibly also by a reduction in stock values at a reasonable level. The case of the Lees Valley settlers is a notable instance of this. Where the companies continue to finance the soldier a condition should be made also that rent should be paid up in future. In this connection, however, it should be recognized that the Crown was saved considerable loss when stockvalues dropped suddenly, but the Crown will, in many cases, bear its share by remissions of rent. Just now the companies are having to write off as lost considerable sums where the position of the soldier is hopeless, and they are selling up the stock and dropping many of the weak cases. In a few instances, where the action seemed justified, I have distrained for rent, or threatened to do so, but much of this would only result in the companies withdrawing their support from the soldier, and on the whole I think it a course better left alone, except in glaring instances. Assistance to soldiers from companies is not now forthcoming to soldiers holding Government land as freely as just after the war, and there are cases where, although the soldier is willing to continue at interest on a reduced price of land, experience shows that owing to various circumstances

11—C. 9a.