THE MORTGAGE CORPORATION BILL

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21418, 9 March 1935, Page 9

THE MORTGAGE CORPORATION BILL

TO 4 TH£ EDITOB OT THI PK*S3. Sir.—l was pleased to read a letter signed by "Hard Hit" in "The Press" on the above bill. I certainly agree with him that if a man on the land can't pay 5 per cent, on money borrowed to work the farm, then either he should never have been a farmer or hadn't the brains to work the land successfully. Does "Hard Hit" realise it is not the farmer that is asking for this bill In plain truth it is the Government moving heaven and earth to get it passed quickly, because the State Advances Department has run short of cash to keep the country going, and the Government is not getting the returns from Crown tenants, being some millions behind. A lot of farmers are sheltering behind the moratorium and not attempting to pay the mortgagee his interest, while the mortgagee is not paying his income tax because he is not receiving his income. It is evident at a glance that the Government is at its wits' end to find the money to keep afloat; hence it introduces a bill to help the farmer, when all the time it is to save its own skin by unloading bonds or debentures on to the public. That is, if we are mugs enough to subscribe to them! One never mioses the water till the veil runs dry, and the Government admits its lending power is curtailed, if not altogether stopped. New, as for cheap money, it is a curse, as past experience has told. Take the advent of cheap money, introduced by Mr Seddon. What happened? Immediately money became cheap it was thought to be of little value, and the borrower threw it to the four winds of heaven and induJ in over-speculation: hence high laud values, high prices for houses, high prices for labour, etc., and after a while everyone living beyond his or her means—then the precipice and erasn. No, money should be fixed both ways, 5 per cent, to borrower and lender; and if a man can't make a do on that he should quit his trade in business or farming and v go back to making a living by elbow grease. I admit it was not the present Government that caused high land values; it was the Massey and Ward governments. They were responsible for placing our returned men on highpriced land after the war, and with cheap money land soared 25 per cent, beyond its producing value, often 50 per cent, to 75 per cent, beyond. Basing money at 5 per cent., I would ask what is wrong with fat lamb at over £1 a head, wool at 9d per lb, butterfat at 8d per lb, and 4s a bushel for wheat? Nothing whatever! They are good prices. What is wrong is the land on which the above is produced; it is far beyond its value. But here we are again—past governments having created high land values with cheap money, the present Government dare not make a fresh valuation of the whole country for fear of lessening the rates and taxes; but sooner or later a fresh valuation will be insisted on, and the sooner the better for all concerned. All rural valuations should be based on the productivity of the land under proper treatment and money based at 5 per cent. Much less rushing to the Government for assistance and less abuse of the valued mortgagee and landlord should be our motto. Without the present uncalled for mortgage relief. legislation it appears to me the Mortgagors' Adjustment Commissioners should have been capable of adjusting matters between mortgagee and mortgagor; and in that case the present complicated bill should never have been contemplated. It certainly would not have been had the Government not been short of money.—Yours, etc., AN OLD FARMER. March 8, 1935.