Extraordinary Rental Anomaly In

Solomon Islands.

Some Landholders Get Relief, While Others are Denied.

Letter to the Editor,

TO the informed reader of the published report of the proceedings of the Ad visory Council of the British Solomon Islands, held on the 3rd of November last the opening question of the senior Non-official Member, upon the subject of Native Lease Rentals, brings uppermost in the mind the long-felt discontent of land-holders with the scale of rentals now in operation.

By every fair-minded person it is ad mitted that these rentals are out of all proportion to the actual value of the land; more particularly is this so in the light of present economic conditions, al though no world “depression” was neces sary to convince the unfortunate lessee of the fact.

There is no doubt that when these rentals were introduced a feeling of quite unjustifiable optimism existed, in official circles at least, as to the possi bilities of this group in an economic sense. Information as to the available labour resources was inaccurate and based upon optimistic estimates.

As long ago as eleven years, and re peatedly since then, within the writer’s knowledge, representations have been made to the Administration to have a reduction made. But no satisfaction was given, nor relief granted until recent conditions made the position of the les see so desperate that it could no longer be ignored.

Leasehold land in this Protectorate is held under two forms of title —if one

neglects the occupation licenses and ex tended tenures granted to certain privi leged companies viz., the Crown Lease instituted under King’s Re gulation No. 3, of 1914, and the Native Lease under amendments to the Regulation referred to. Broadly speaking, the difference between these two forms of lease is that in the case of the “Crown Lease” the Administration acquired the fee simple from the native by purchase, thereafter leasing to the European lessee; while in the case of the “Native Lease” the native owner re tained the freehold, receiving annually, rental upon the same scale as that paid on a Crown Lease, less 10 per cent, re tained by the Government by way of commission.

Whatever may have been the object in instituting these two forms of tenure, there can be no doubt but that a most vexatious position has arisen therefrom, inflicting grievous hardship upon holders of the latter title.

When it is understood that no option was available to prospective lease holders as to the kind of lease they should have, it can, per haps, be appreciated that some discon tent would naturally result when the Government lately gave relief, and very substantial relief, amounting to a fore going of two-thirds of the rental in the case of Crown Leases, while leaving the Native Leases at the original figure.

As a result of this, there is the spec

tacle of two owners of leasehold land within this Protectorate, the one paying annually but a third of the amount the other is obliged to pay.

By reducing the rentals of Crown Land the Administration has recognised the necessity for reduction and, acting as it has done for the native in all mat ters pertaining to the granting of Native Leases, it seems but reasonable that it should make at least an honest en deavour to bring these to a basis of equality with the others. Government has fixed the rentals for both leases.

There has not been since, nor could there have been at the time, any con sultation nor agreement with the native owners of land as to the amount which was to be fixed as rental. This being so, it would seem no hardship upon the natives concerned if the rentals on their land were to be reduced in conformity with that of the Crown. Receiving one third of the scale of rentals now in force, the native leaseholder would still be in an infinitely better position than his fellow who had disposed of his land outright to the Government, to be sub sequently leased at an exorbitant rental.

In conclusion, let us again peruse the Advisory Council Report, and here we find in Mr. Mackinnon’s opening ques tion and the reply by the President of Council, a full and complete justification for the discontent of the unfortunate holder of the native lease. Question and answer are set down as asked and re plied to; Mr. Mackinnon; Is information available as to the outcome of repre sentations to the Administration, sub mitted during several sessions of the Advisory Council, in respect of the need to reduce rentals of land held on lease from natives to conform with the

rentals charged on land leased from the Crown?

President: This matter is at present in the hands of the Secretary of State.

Official correspondence which has passed on the subject is confidential.

If any further cause for exasperation and annoyance was needed it would be found in the knowledge that in cases, within the writer’s experience, the native leaseholders themselves are willing to accept a reduction on the same lines as provided for the Crown lands.

This statement could be corroborated by a certain respected District Officer whose desire for an amicable adjustment and efforts towards this end form a pleasing contrast to the attitude of the “powers at Whitehall” and subordinates thereto.

Adsum.

Gizo, June 24, 1933.