MR CARROLL AND THE FREEHOLD

Gisborne Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1478, 12 June 1905, Page 3

MR CARROLL AND THE FREEHOLD

j(To the Editor Gisborne Times., gi ri x have read Mr Carroll’s addres ß at Ormond. Ho says he has studied the criticisms of the Opposition but he never could find where they came down to solid proposals—they were still iu the air. Well, he must be very dense if he can’t find the solid proposals which are in a nut shell, and that is to give the leaseholder the notion oE makmg bis land freehold ; if he h.JS the moans to do it and prefers it to tfao leasehold there is nothing compulsory about it. Mr Carroll uses the same claptrap as the other Government supporters when he says “ The State could not possibly give away whatever increment there was -7 in the land, for the reason that it did not belong to them but to the people as a whole.” Well, all I can Bay is, if they have given it away for 999 years, why not give it away for evor ? Is it likely that the Bame laud laws are going to exist for that period ? Not quite 1 And the new land law-maker 3 will revalue the lease- «, holders’ blocks, and as it has been improved, so will the ront bo put up. He says he was not opposed to the freehold, but was certainly against giving the land ,to holders at the price ut which they 4 originally took it up. If they did this they were giving away something that rightly belonged to the people as a whols. This is socialism pure and simple. If I take up I a section in the back blocks covered with V heavy bush, that in its present state is no übb to the people or anybody else, and if I of toil and money in clearing the land and making it fit to carry sheep or cattle, why should I not have tho bane,4- fit of the unearned increment that we hear so much about ? Haven’t I made the

place what it is, and should X not bo entitled to the increased value through my v own exertions, instead of Bill Smith or Tom Jones, the tailor, who, X .suppose. are .the people Mr Carroll talks about, and •who should divido it up amongst them 9 ibis is the sort of talk that pleases the

l socialistic crowd who keep the present I party in power. Thr Farmers’ Union aro 1 cr ~ doing good work in this and other dis- | triots, and I hope to see them put up a 1 man who will sea that the freehold option I - is given to leaseholders. The evidence 1 . brought out so far by the Land Commis- 1 sion is overwhelmingly in favor of the free- 1 hold, quite nine-tenths of the leaseholders I eing of that opinion. Poverty Bay, I •above sll othor places, is where the free-| Bold t'-Vure should be given. It has tens->of-thr\«B»«fds of acres of good bush land | lying idle, ‘ and likely to do so, for it is not Jikely leaseholders will go away back and , ibury themselves for years in clearing lland without Jtbe chance of making it their r~ -own. Lot the Government givo them th 3 ijand with the option of purchaso, and they vwill then have somo hoart to go in and «Work for their families. — I am, etc., FbEEHOLDER. . .... . - ■ .