The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1907. LAND AND LOGIC.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 25, 24 October 1907, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1907. LAND AND LOGIC.

.— — : —*- \ ' Our evening contemporary yesterday essayed a defence of ; the Government's contention that the holder of a lease-in-perpetuity should pay the present value for the freehold. The Ministry, as practical politicians, know that they cannot establish the justice of their contention by an appeal to reason, and they have, had the wit to confine themselves to vague party rhetoric. But our contemporary has rushed in where Ministers feared to tread, and has built up a fine structure of argument which would be perfect, but that it excluded the determining factor of the whole position. Summarised briefly, our contemporary points out that a private landlord,- letting his property for a short term of years, would laugh, and rightly laugh, if his tenant demanded as a i;ight that the lease should be renewed on the old terms, or the property sold' to him at the,original .value. That is quite.obvious—so obvious that we are surprised that any newspaper should charge anybody with making any contention to the contrary. . The essence.of the "pre r sent value" champion's view is contained in this passage:—

"But the Opposition ' complains that the Slate will not do what members of the Opposition would never do or expect as landlords oi- lessees. . . . 'When Mr. Fraser sells land, docs ho soil at the present value or at the value of' ten years or twenty years ngo? Hoiv should Mr. Fraser expect the State to be more virtuous than ho is.

But supposing that Mr. Eraser had let-his'land on a 999-years ; lease at a fixed rental which could .never increase, and had thus locked up his capital for ever. Would he, if he /were in his senses', refuse the opportunity of getting back the capital lie had'so poorly invested ? Would he not bo glad to have his money for re-investment in land which he would lease more profitably? Arid ■ would . lie not, as Mr. Massey pointed out the other ,, night,. " jump at , " the chance of getting back into his hands his capital plus 1 per cent ? That is exactly the position of the State. The Opposition complaint is not " that the State will not do what members of the Opposition would never dp or expect as landlords or lessees." Its complaint is that the State will'not do what every sane .man in the State's unfortunate position;would be grateful to have the opportunity of doing. Everybody is agreed that the State should endeavour to get rid of so bad a bargain as the 999-years' alienation of its land, and the unprofitable lock-ing-u'p of its capital on increasingly vexing terms. The tenant, in praying for,the freehold, is praying for what everybody admits it will be wise in this case for the Government to give. He cannot "demand" the freehold, 'of course, and nobody has suggested that he could. But; holding the key of the position/he can refuse to giveinore than he thinks reasonable. It would not pay tho State to sell the land at a price sojow as to return a capital sum Vhich would not, on re-investment, secure a better return than it yields at present. But a man who.leases to another £100 worth of ■land;for : 999. years at 4.per cent.,, and who, on being offered £101 for the freehold of his land, refuses to take less than £150, even 'though re-possession of his cash w,ould enable him to re-invest at 5, or 6, or 7 per cent., is simply a fool.. That, again, is the position* of the State. If the 999-years' lease were a 20-years , lease, our contemporary's amplification of the obvious would be .relevant.. The whole point of the question'-is,., however, that the 999-vears' louse is a 009years' lease, and the, question itself is not a theoretical problem of assessment and ownership, but a matter of expediency and the ending of a,bad bars'l™- . '. ..■.;...".■ . :