SOLDIERS' FARMS

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 308, 24 September 1919, Page 7

SOLDIERS' FARMS

THE MEN WHO SOLD OUT'

UNABLE TO REPURCHASE

A RADICAL PROPOSAL

The case of the 6oldier farmers who sold their lipids on enlistment, and who now find on their return to this country that they cannot buy those farms back again except nt a heavy advance in price, was mentioned by Sir Joseph Ward in the House yesterday. Sir Joseph Ward paid that he had several letters from returned soldiers ou this matter. In some cases the men had found on their return that their land had gone up .£2O an acre' in price in their absence. He astcd the Prime If mister whether ho did not consider it a fair thing that. Parliament should pass legislation giving the Government power to resume compulsorily these farms, giving the-present owners compensation for improvements they had made, possibly allowing'them five per cent, extra. He thought that little consideration should be' shown to men who were holding ou to lands bought from soldiers who had to sell their farms for the sole purpoao of going to fight. Some of them had had to sell at e lossi Drastic legislation should be passed now to take back this land for the original owners of it. No one had a right to make a profit out or men who went to fight to: - their country. He .voulrl support nny legislation introduced by the Primo Minister for the purposu of restoring to the returned soldiers tho 'land' they had 6old in order to go to fight, and he felt sure that the country would endorse any action in this connection that might be taken by Parliament. Ho had a letter, he said, from a man who had had a wife and sister dependent on him. Now the soldier had come back, and he could not get tho farm again except at an increase of .£2O an acre. He had also three letters form soldiers, who complained bitterly of their position. ,-'.'■'; l : , Mr. 'Massey said that the' matter ;had alreridy been under consideration, and ho had taken the opinion of the SolicitorGeneral on the question. The question' was somewhat difficult. It was entirely new; there.were no precedents to guide. He quite agreed with the Leader of the Opposition that the Government and the House should see that nothing was done to wrong the men who had gone to the front to fight. ' .- Dr. Thacker mentioned the case of the wife of a soldier who had practically been evicted from the farm in the absence of the man at the war., He'supported the demand of the Leader ,of the Opposition that these soldiers should be"* reinstated on their farms, which they had to abandon owing to the exigencies of the war. Owing to the war the lands of the. Dominion had been enhanced by from £i to ,i£2s an.acre, and if there were any people who had a right to profit by this.increase, they should be the former owners of the land, the soldiers who had gone to fight for, it. Mr. J. A. Young quoted the case of a soldier, who. after two years' absence, IfSS unable to secure possession of hishouse/ The home had been let during the absence of the 6oldier-owner to a mau who was drawn in the ballot subsequently, and who was in camp on the date of .the armistice. This tenant was 'technically a returned soldier, although lie had never been out of the country, and he was therefore protected from eviction. He had refused to, give up the liouso. and the returned owner was compelled to live with his family in lodgings. Sir Joseph Ward quoted the case of a returned soldier who had sold his farm, on which he had supported his widowed mother and young sister, prior to leaving for the front. This man had returned, and wanted to get on the land again, but his farm had recently been sold at an 'advance of ,t'soo to Ji6oo on what he obtained for it. .Mr. Massev: T have received similar .letters from, soldiers.. ...--. A member: What" about the man who sold his.business? , ... '. Sir Joseph Ward said the chief trouble whs with, regard to land, but he saw no reason why a returned man would not be entitled to have his business back. The Hon. J. B. JLine: What would you do. witli the man who pocketed the .K00? Sir Joseph Ward: I would try to get it out of him. The Hon. J. A. Hanan said Hint the ■nan who had sold a farm could not be placed in a special position. All sorts of men had made sacrifices, and wero entitled to assistance. • The man who wanted land, the man who had sold a business and the man who had sold a home must be considered, as well as the man who had sold a farm. He suggested that the Dominion needed some sys-. lem of taxation to prevent enormous increments of land value being pocketed bv the fortunate few. The Hon. D. H.. Guthrie (Minister.of Lnndsl .said that returned soldiers were being given preference in the settlement of nil the available Crown' and settlement land. The Government had made provision' during the war for the pronerf i'ps of soldiers to be managed on their behalf bv trustees. But the system had not worked well in all cases, and many men. in the later stages of the war, had preferred to sell their- farms when they were called into the forces. Tn the cases nf soldiers leasing Crown lands, rents and irai>i<ovemeut? had been -protected, and it had been the policy of the Government to prevent any dependants of -a soldier from being dispossessed of Orown Lands.