LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1882, 16 October 1913, Page 4

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

; MR. ISITT AND MR. ATMORE. Sir,-—I write tin's ]ottor bccauso even you, after your attack en mo in to-da.v's issue, can scarcely refuse it admission to your columns, and I hope by its publication to .show your readers that, whether I am'right or not in my diV puto with my friend Mr. Atmore, your setting of my argument is unfair. I want to impress upon any unprejudiced! readers of The Dominion tho fact thattliey must not judge mo by your manipulation of my utterances'; that your ono purpose is to present 1110 as a \ await tool who mistakes empty rhetorio tor logic. My first point is that, whether ' 1 am right or wrong, I nm associated 111 my view with thousands of men who are at least your equal in mental equipment and who cannot ho disposed of by your mere ipso dixit or contoniptuous snec . r - Now I was not discussing tho possibility of maintaining the leasehold, tenure I practically admitted the impossibility of retaining tho freehold for the Crown in view of tho political inlhienco tho ever-increasing number of Crown tenants holding leaseholds call bring to bear upon the Government. I dealt with one point: Mr. Atmore's contention that it matters nothing to •±i T w ' ,c ther it retains or parts with tho freehold, inasmuch as tho Crown can always tax the freehold to such extent as it thinks just and nccesThis from my point of view is a fallacy. _So long as the Crown docs not part with tho fee-simple 'and asserts tho right of revaluation it retains' tho unearned increment. So soon as it parts with the. freehold the unearned ' increment passes to the purchaser, and while theoretically it may he correct to . say that the Crown may tax tho fivehold to such an extent as to recover the unearned increment, as a matter of practical politics it will be an impossibility. Tho moro_ tho lands of New Zealand aro subdivided into freeholds and you limit holdings, the more you increase freeholders. Theso freeholders will unite politically for tho defence of their financial 'interests, and every year it will become more and more impossible to tax land beyond a certain point in tho teeth of tho power the freeholderswill wield. This, sir, was my one argument, and l I shall bo glad to know • wherein tho absurdity and shallowness of this contention consists.—l am, etc., LEONARD M. ISITT. October 15, [Mr. Isitt docs himself injustice in suggesting that wo regard him as a. fluent fool. His knowledge of political questions may be quite elementary, and' thero is not tho least doubt tlrnt empty rhetoric,is more his forte than logic, but it would bo unfair to assume therefore that lie.was merely' a fluent fool. A member may-'be unduly talkative, and! 110 maybo illogical and he may mjstnko aggressive assertion for convincing argument, but it does not necessarily mean that ho is a fool. He is indeed 1 nowadays a very common type of politician. As to. our..misrepresenting Mr. Isitt, he'is again in ,error. He did not in tho House elaborate tho point as 110 now does in his letter, but lit<<" effect was practically the same," and was clearly stated by us, as the following extract from our article, will show:— "In thf> course of his following (remarks he [Mr. Isitt) said the freehold wns only granted because there was a sufficient number of leaseholders to make it worth while giving them tho freehold, they woro greedily clamouring for; aiidi' that when they became freeholders tliey , would not permit themselves to bo taxed, because there would be too many of t-Jiem." But what Mr. Isitt 110 doubt objected to was the comment which followed. Hero it is:—"Everv point made by the member for 'Ohristchureh' North against the freehold, as was clearly pointed out bv tho member for Nelson, applied oqliallv to the leasehold'. On 'his own showing Mr. Isitt' wants eveiyone to ho leaseholders; vet ho says ill the.samo breath the more leaseholders that, aro made the moro; certain is it that/ther will p;ot tlio froo--hold, because of their influence in, politics. Therefore, apnarontly, iiv order to stop tho leaseholders from retting the freehold it is undesirable that moro than a limited number of leaseholds should bo, permitted to exist. Then again if tho freeholders, as stated! bv Mr. Isitt, will refuse to permit themselves to bo taxed when, they beconio sufficiently numerous, surelv tho same thing would anply to the leaseholders who would in similar circumstances demand reduced rents?" Wo hold no brief for Mr. Atmore, lmt no ono wjio . hoard +he discussion in tho House between the two members could 1 for 0110 moment doubt that Mr. Isitt, despite his (iiienov and his rhetorio. emerged from tho encounter well beaten .1