THE LAND BILL.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 942, 8 October 1910, Page 10

THE LAND BILL.

: ',' YET: ANOTHER BLOT! ' _' : Sir,—"Would-you pardon! me suggesting -that, -'bad 1 , as. you have, shown,"., in recent articlek, .the case of the unfortunate holder; of land over £40,000 unimproved, rai^e,,.whoser.land -might', be: pleased by tlla Grown'if'the'Land':'Bill .as:now drafted became law,' you' Have 'really.-- statedH-:th6';.case'" in its-,mildest: form.-■' We'kisow by experience that'the 'values of estates taken'by the Crown, ■have, after ooiting up and' selling, been :iaised -very, ;greatly. - I know of one Estate taken.a few years ago, the.mar.kpt .value" of ariiich.is now nearly thfee times that, paid-by. the Government tc. the:former proprietor. -I"think it is fair Ho. ''assume- I '.that"any es-. tates' that migfet be taken by the Crown under-.' the- leasing* provisions of. the Bill, if passed, .would, on the first, assessment ; after, cutting up, roading, and .Subletting, be iaised' to' double:■ the 'value on'which,.the Crown'-had to pay ,4£ per cent, -qansequently the graduated tas: would > not, be--' 21 per cent or 3$ percent. 5 oirfr; of the i|' per cent receiyed byiibe piop'rietor' j .'bnt 2} to -3J percenton WiCet equalling" ■spbr);cent.:6r Tj.peficeht on the. value" to which ie Teeaved relit. So instead .of liaying a : balance of, 2 : per cent or £• per ''cent -to live ah; he would have, to up ! a deficiency- of,vJ per',cent. or. '3 ,per -cent. ■ Bmall iholders .would- do. ivellVto Temembeit that-their: turn for being'Tobibed '.will surely' come' largeQib'lclers are • air fleeced:—l,. am, etc.,?-./.- .':,'•':><• i-- : 'i - ■■':■'-'■ : ' '.;'■'"-.: . >J'/ >'3 ;::--, /SMALLHOLDER. \ Opunake.. '. ...- ■■.;.'