Mr Moore said he was not a lease holder, but was acting for the benefit of the district in the matter. Owing to the present state of affairs the pro gress of the district was seriously re tarded, and the position of the settlers had not been brought under the Go vernment notice as it should have been. So far as he knew the Government did not know how the settlers were situ ated, and he thought it should be brought home to them. Out of cour tesy it should be placed before the Public Trustee, but from their expe rience in the past there was little chance of getting anything from him. As an instance of how the Public Trustee treated settlers he would cite the instance of the Puniho Eoad.. The leaseholders there had asked the Pub lic Trustee for a grant, but the Trus tee said “No.” Then the settlers agreed to find half cost, and were again met with a refusal from the Trustee. Later on the Trustee let the land higher up the road, and then came back to the settlers and wanted them to pay half cost, the bulk of the settlers were agreeable, but others re fused. That was how the Trustee acted. If it was of no benefit to the estate he did not care a rush. Again, on the Ihaia Eoad, the Tru tee would not do anything, and the settlers had to find £27 10s. Take Mr Higgins’ case on this ro c, d. A mile and a half of the road was still standing bush, and the Trustee declined to fell it be cause the land on the opposite side of the road was still unlet, it belonging to a-different hapu. This he con sidered was absurd. When the lands were first opened up a considerable sum was voted by the Government to open up lands, and the same principle should be applied now. Although the settlers in this district were not Crown tenants, yet they do as much to in crease the wealth of the country and contribute as much to taxation as Crown tenants do. 