LAND TENURE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1514, 24 July 1905, Page 1

LAND TENURE.

{To the Jtidi.lor Gisborne Times.) Sir, —The Conservative Tress has of late been busily engaged in misrepresenting the proceedings of the Laud Commission. The misrepresentation consists as far as can bo seen in the undue prominence which is always given to any evidence in support of the freehold. If a witness soys he is in favor of being given the freehold of bis land a heading in large capitals appeals, “ More evidence in favor of the freehold," but if a witness says ho is satisfied with his bargain and is prepared faithfully to carry out the contract he has made with the State his ovidunoe is ignored as mush os possible, or at least no prominence is j given .to the loport by the use of headlines. Chief among those papers is the Auckland Weekly News, an admirably illustrated journal of strong reactionary tendencies. This paper nevei fails to lend its intluenco to support tha landlord, the lawyer oud the morgngeo ; never fails to oppose any relotm intended to benefit the mass of the people. There is not one such measure of the presolii Government which it has not opposed to the oitent of its somewhat limited ability. The freeholders are careful to point out that they ask not for froebold outright but for the option only ; that ig if that suits them they should be able to compel the Government to sell, but if not they should remain as Ihey are. No mention is made of giving iho Government power to force tbpm to buy ; such a proposal would bo resented as uoheaid of tyrauny. Nor dooa tho most reactionary of journals vonture to suggest the logical conclusion that ail tenants should have the right to compel their landlords to sell. Such a low would wipe Isndlordism oil the face of the earth at a blow. Suppose the tcuaut of a bouse had a right to say " This house suits me, boues-properly is likoly to go up aud you must sell mo the freehold whether ,you like it or not." Yot such o right is just what the freeholders are aiming for, Rud the obvious onc-sidedness of sueh a breuca of contract would ensure its own defeat were it not that unfortunately many people regard the Government as fair game to be plundered in any .possible way. No doubt a large majority of Crown tenants wonld prefer the freehold tenure so that in time they themselves could become landlords, especially if it can be obtained on their ov/u lerms ; any number of witnesses will give evidence to that offset. If.ajCommission were enquiring into other matters it would bo possible to pro~ duce any number of importers who would strenuously insist upon the advantages of high wages. Muny leaseholders assert I that ,they wish for the froebold as they I fear revaluation. What act of this Government can they point to which would give them just cause, to fear the State would dare or oven wish to break a mutually-agreod upon contract ? Some tenants oven have the assurance to ask for the right lo purchaso at the valuation at which their holdings were originally taken up. There arc tens ol thousands of acres in this district which were leased on a valuation of from five to ten shillings an acre, which are now worth from a pouud to twenty five shillings unimproved value. When this land was taken up u sheep which now fotches from fifteen to twenty shillings was worth seven or eight. No doubt many of our land-laws call for ro

vißion. The 999 years’ lease is an absurdity which would uever have beea allowed hud it not been for the anxiety of the Government at the time to get tho land settled on

any terms. But many things will happen in u thousand years, iuteicsi may go down to nothing, and the value of land at unyrato for stock-raising purposes will almost certainly disappear. It would seem almost

impossible to decide upon absolutely fair and equitable terms upon which land should be held. Probably tho best insight would be tbat tho landowner should have a permanent lease from the State with

periodical revaluations, the rent to equal the current rato of interest for mouey ; the tenant to have the right to manage the property as he pleases and to be uoie to dispose of his interest as suits him. Land matt;rs in this district uro somewhat complicated by the Maori olemout. Large aud increasing areas are improved by Europeao capical and labor, aud it seems unfair shat the natives should receive large sums as rent for property, the value oi which they have never lifted a finger to create. Nevertheless justice must be done though the heavens should fail, aut} the Maoris

have quite os much right to their lauds as have most of the landlords of the Old

Country. There can be little doubt that if Britain should fall from her high estate it will bo by means of the twin curses of private landlordism aud excessive money worship. And it is here that the sanity of the socialists' ideal appears. They recognise that the loan of land or money is a vrluable consideration which should bo paid for, but they contend ibat such payments made to privato persons tend to create an idle and useless class, and that an idle man

with a thousand a year is just as great a burden on the community as a tramp who begs for a living. An illusiration will show

how this is : suppose a man digs up a diamond or a lump of gold which he can

sell for ten thousand pounds, he has performed no action which would ho of the least benefit to mankind, but on the in-

tereet of this sum he can purchase exemption frocj work fartho rest of his life and not only that but he can hand on this immunity from usefulness to his son and his

son’s son for over. lam not myelf either a lease or freeholder of land, but as a citiizen of New Zealand, and as such a shareholder in the pub.ic estate I do not hesitate to describe myself as— One of the Owners.