The Dominion. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1912. LAND LEGISLATION.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1589, 5 November 1912, Page 6

The Dominion. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1912. LAND LEGISLATION.

The passage of the' Land Bill through its last stage in the Legislative Council yesterday is an event of much interest and importance. We do not propose here to discuss the Bill afresh, or to refer, except in passing, to the fact that its passage is anotner Convincing proof of tne vitality of the new liotorm Government; the important thing is that it marks the end of that Icing impos.ture, tho "leasehold" agitation. This fact seems to have been recognised even by tho Hon. J. Bigg, who, although a ' land rationaliser, arid therefore bound to oppose tho Bill, yet confessed the futility .of _ that policy which seeks to retain in the hands of the State a small fraction of the. Crown lands. If Mr. Bigg means, as his words would seem to imply, that there ought not in reason to be arty middle course between the freehold occupation of the soil and. the ownership of all lands by the State, wc quite agree with b.rri. Either it is desirable that the 3li.t-<r should hold the fee-simple of all .land or undesirable. Mn. Hiog's Observation was an opening of the door upon the absurd and shifty manoeuvrinjp'l. ofcii the "leasehold , party for the -past twenty years. Conscious all the time that the holders of lands should all be, or be allowed to be, freeholders as the only logical alternative to the full policy of land nationalisation, the "leaseholders" have neycr dared to face the issue. ' They were always ready with some change of front: they "put their backs to the doot"-—and slipped through it; they "nailed their colours to the mast"—and abandoned the ship ; they appointed Royal Commissi.ons; they essayed compromises. They did anything , but face squarely the real issue, which was, and is: Should the State ! become tho sole landowner, or should it encourage the establishment of a nation of small freeholders 1 The- , Continuous..-Ministry was forced into this course of action by the unhappy fact that its supporters, nl- : though United in loyalty to tho Spoils rdffime, were split hopelessly .on the tenure question. The end of their dominance, and the beginning of a sane and honest treatment of the land problem, was assured when they were driven into the last ditch of assertion that the question of tenure was of no moment.

We need waste no regrets now, however, upon the wretched enough fact that at least a dozen years have been squandered which , could have been used- to splendid advantage in building up . 6n a "freehold" basis a body of legislation, that would have served for a generation of sound and, undisturbed settlement. The fact that is now plain to everyone is that tho."leasehold" cry, as.wr, have known it, is for all practical purposes silenced. It would have been silenced years ago by Mr. Sei>don or by his Successor had not the "Liberal", party been weakly dependent on a little knot of city Radicals, and afraid to kick them out. The "grand old 'Liberal 1 ' party" was really a somewhat cowardly one. The fundamental considerations which the State should take into account were well put by tho Hon. O, Samuel yesterday in a most interesting speech which we unfortunately lack space to print at any length. He pointed out that so far as the lease-in-perpetuity tenants are concerned, it would in'the long run be a good bargain for the State to get rid of its ownership by any means. As matters stand, the State has its capital interest in these- lands locked up for ever at a fixed rate of interest which; every year becomes more and more microscopic in rela-" 1 tion to the real ya.lue > of the land, ; If the State recovers its capital by giving the freehold at the original value, it will ,bc able to use it to enormously better advantage. The land will then be available for taxation, and the capital for fruitful investment. This is so obvious that it would have been admitted long ago had not the old party's circumstances forced it into endless shifts and sophistries. Mb, Sajiuel also .urged that tho "National Endowment" lands should also be brought under the freehold policy. He pointed out that it was only a trick to call these lands "endowment" lands, and that the power which called them so, and declared them inalienable, could call them by Any other name, and make them aiienfible, with just as much propriety. This is a view we have often expressed. The bogus anxiety of the "leasehold" party to "preserve the endowments," and "safeguard tlve national estate," and all the rest of it, was and is merely a part of the long and insincere tactics of the mixed "Liberal'] party.' . One of the most interesting points in Mr.'Samuel's-Speech was his comment upon the grievous blunder of the Government that established.the 809-years' lease. That it was a blunder we all know now; but tho lesson for to-day ia that wo must tnlto care that we dp not blunder again.

What is wanted is honesty and candour in the treatment of the land question. For nearly a score of years it has not been treated honestly; b'lt was merely used to serve party endi We can understand, as. we have oft in said, the man who thinks that the State should be the sole landowner. He advocates a policy that is simply fraught with ruin for the country, but at least he is logical and consistent. The only alternative is that the land shall he held by individuals in holdings of reasonable size. Of coursc the new Government cannot all of a sudden reverse all s the land laws: it must proceed cautiously, and not by too many steps at a time. ' The Bill, however, as the "leaseholders" recognise with chagrin, is a positive stride towards a sane land policy, despite some defects in detail-which are happily remediable. The best immediate result of the Bill will be the forcing of the politicians into the only natural divisions—the freeholders against the Socialists.