The Dominion. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1910. "BY PLUNGE out of PLUNDER."

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 918, 10 September 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1910. "BY PLUNGE out of PLUNDER."

We arc, indebted to a correspondent ' of ai.'. racing turn of mind, whoso : ;:letter appears, in another columns, for the above illuminating description of the Land Bill just introduced by the Prime Minister. "By Plunge out of Plunder" sums up the authorship and nature of the measure with such startling accuracy, and gives, such pointed emphasis to the .vicious qualities .of the Bill, that ■•• it makes detailed comment almost superfluous. The Bill illustrates not only the reckless plunging of the Government which brought it into existence, but discloses also their readiness to plunder where they think the plundering can be done with safety • to their political •' existence. .' The more the clauses relating to the compulsory leasing of largo estates in the country are considered the more vicious and unprincipled the whole proposal' appears. What bettor evidence of the plunging proclivities of the head of the Government could bo desired than the reckless fashion in which theso clauses have been drafted and a measure involving such vitallyV important issues to the whole country thrust on the House bristling with defects and abounding in rank injustice? If anyone should doubt tho accuracy of this statement, lot- him read the Prime Minister's _ own confession regarding the omission of any reference in the Bill to the remission of taxation on land compulsorily taken on lease. If anyone doubts that it is a plundering Bill let_ him make a note of the following illustration of how the measure would work if passed into .lav.' us presented to Par--1 liaraont by, tho Government. Lot us'

take the case of a large estate of an absentee landlord, valued at' something over £200,000. The 'Government seize this land on lease and pay the owner 4s per cent on tho capital value, incidentally locking up and depriving him of his capital. It is bad enough to seize a man's property, and pay him cash;'-it is infinitely worse to seize his property and pay him only: a small rent for it; but this is not all. This slovenly, ill-considered Bill proposes to take from the owner in such case as that quoted above by taxation very nearly the whole of the-rent which is given him by the State. The. actual amount collected by taxation on such an estate of more than £200,000 in unimproved value, is 2 per cent graduated tax; plus 25 per cent of the above if dt is rural land, plus 50 per cent additional if the owner, is an absentee.

Thus the unfortunate owner would receive a -maximum of 4| per cent on the capital value of his property but'would have taken away from him by taxation 3i or 32 per cent—we are not quite certain which—on the unimproved value of the property. What would be left to' him when, the Government had done '.its plundering as permitted under this Bill if passed as introduced 1 ! Let any small owner of property place himself in the -position of' the unfortunate, owner so situated. Would he consider it a fair thing to have his land taken from him on lease and receive a net return of something like one per cent] Would anyone -outside the; the militant Socialists regard this as anything but bare-faced robbery? In smaller estates the net return would be : larger but the principle remains, the samel—the owner would be plundered of a portion of the value of his property and have his capital cumpulsorily locked up as well.. Where any part of the land, taken happened to-be mortgaged the injustice would be still further accentuated.; For instance, take the case of a property valued at £50,000 and carrying a £20,000 mortgage. The owner,/would be given a; rent equal to not more than 4i per cent on the £50,000;. while on £'20,000; of that amount ho would be. paying from' 5i to" 6, per cent., interest on' his. mortgage.': In-.-other words, on £20,000 worth of his property he would, through the action of the Government, be actually losing from 'one to one and a half per cent por annum, and with no_ means of escaping from ' the'\ position thus created.; . Is not this/' plunderingj Would any small house-owner in the city tamely, submit to such robbery 1 We have .not deemed it necessary/, to again refer to the' general principle of this portion ,of: the Bill with its glaringly unjust-provisions for locking' up. the landowner's capital and tying nis 1 hands in a. way to .prevent him embarking on any now, venture, calling for the use .of his /capital.' The' ' whole thing ■is.so ; : monstrously unjust ■ that . it.. is amazing .to find- a Government oven so reckless .as our own bringing down- such- a'-measure; Nothing could "do the credit of the country more,harm' than such ruthless attacks made on private:property-and the utter disregard ■ for. the canons of commercial. morality' shown ■. ih-V this as presented, to''Parliament.