The Feilding Star. SATURDAY, JUNE 20, 1891. State Made Farmers

Feilding Star, Volume XII, Issue 153, 20 June 1891, Page 2

The Feilding Star. SATURDAY, JUNE 20, 1891. State Made Farmers

There appears in the Nineteenth Century for April, an article on statemade farmers, which with a very few trifling alterations, might easily be made applicable to New Zealand. Dealing with Mr Jesse Colling' b Small Holding's Bill, which has passed its second reading in the House of Commons, the writer points ' out the new plan which proposes to make fanners out of agricultural laborers and village tradesmen. Anyone may apply for up to fifty acres — butcher, baker, candlestick- maker, tinker, tailor, sailor, farmer, apothecary, ploughboy, thief, although the last named rnupt not be a professional if he is to have any chance of success. The bill proposes to empower local bodies to borrow money of the treasury frith which to purchase land, to sell or let to those who desire to buy or hire it; to expend money in erecting buildings upon, or improving the land which they purchase ; to lend money to purchasers- for' building or improvement ; and to advance three fourths of the purchase money of a holding to any buyer. Each purchaser of a holding is to pay down one fourth of the purchase money, the balance to lemain a perpetual debt on the holding,- subject to interest at the rate of one per cent above the rate paid by the local body to the treasury. To meet the expenses of administering the. Act, the local body may levy a rate on the district. If the principle of setting up men in business as landed proprietors and farmers with State funds, at the risk of the ratepayers, were justifiable, the bill might be regarded as an admirable one,, as the provisions to preveac sub-divisiou and sub-letting, and to euable the local authority- to recover th© laud when desirable for the. public advantage, are commendable. But the principle of the bill is' the quintessence of Socialism. The writer apologises for using the' word Socialism, which is commonly flung at meritorous proposals, as if it were necessarily opprobrious. There is good Socialism, and there is bad Socialism, and the bill in question comes into the latter division' No action ou the part of the State can be, more objectionable than setting men up in business, and providing them with means for carrying on their business. Unless universally extended, it is a system of favoritism. It discourages thrift, by teaching peo- s pie that if they do not store up capital for their own use, the State will provide it for them. It interferes with the natural seiectiou of the fittest by treating the capable and the incapable alike, and it destroys fair competition by creating an artificial demand for the subject of the business specially fostered. It is most unjust because it requires those who are not specially favoured by State patronage, to pay for the losses and failures of those who are. The scheme will be a failure because it will establish as farmers men who are unfitted for the calling. If-it proposed to offer land only- to men who had 1 proved their I ability to make' it pay, and who could hire' or purchase without State assistance, there would be some assurance of success ; but there is no such guarantee when unskilled or thriftless men are made landed proprietors or tenants". The writer asks ; .what prospect, is there that those men ivhose callings are entirely diaassocated from agriculture, will, make their farms pay ? The proposals of our own Ministry to put the unemployed on the land, are about on a par with those of Mr Colling's and are deserving of the same adverse criticism.