The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, SEPT. 4, 1906.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1851, 4 September 1906, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, SEPT. 4, 1906.

!| Closer study of the Government’s land proposals only tend to confirm the view that they are not only inadequate to the desires and requirements of the country, but that they are unworkable, and are certain to become a dead letter if unfortunately the House should be so misguided as to give them legislative effect. In laying them before the House the Premier evidently recognised their inherent weakness when he tacked on tho appeal that “in considering these proposals honorable members, whether favoring the leasehold or the freehold system, will recognise that the Government is making an honest and straight forward attempt to meet defects which undoubtedly exist,” and that “the matter will be approached in the calm and dispassionate spirit its importance demands ” He must have recognised that honorable members were having something placed before them that | they would find it difficult to treat dispassionately in view of the strained effects which the proposals must inevitably produce, and the compromising nature of his treatment of the question of leasehold and freehold tenures. To make the first quotation more apropos to the portion he might have deleted the words “de

fects which undoubtedly exist,” and substituted the words “ the difficulties that confront the Government in the matter of support from both sides of the House.” Had that been the form of the phrase used we could readily concede that the attempt was both “ honest ” and “ straightforward. ’’ To

deal with the proposals seriatim, let

us say at once that had the sale of

Crown lands been stopped thirty years

ago it would have been a good thing for the country; but it is too late to

shut tho stable door when tho goo goo lms vanished, and it is now too lato to ! apply that ombargo, because there aro no Crown lands 1 jft that can bo profitably doalt with in any othor way than by sale for tho v >ry sufficient reason that their positio i and (quality is such that thoy noed largo annual outlay to malco thorn remunerative, and no temporary occupant would bo likely to risk that oxpeuso upon any but his own lroohold. With the discontinuance of tho loaso-in-porpotuity system wo cordially ngroo, for it was a form of tonuro that should novor have been adopted by a Liberal Government, and would never havo boon adopted by any othor. Tho substitution of tho GG years’ term with valuation for improvoments at tho end of the term is certainly an improvement, but there should bo some stipulation as to whether tho occupant should bo able to ronow his term at a now rental to be equitably fixod without competition as appears to bo contemplated by the proposals. Otherwise the new rentals will be subject to the transient fluctuations in values that are always experienced, and may be moat inequitable either to the lessor or to the country, according to the condition of the wave at tho moment. There aro hundreds who are more than satisfied with their leases now who in times of depression would fiud them a heavy burden, and so tho competitive principle must be eliminated from any fair method of dealing with leases. But tho bald proposals as submitted are silent on this point, so we are left to infer from the contest that the lease is to be positively terminable at the end of G 6 years. Another objection to terminable leases is that the last few years of the term are usually years of exhaustion and neglect of proper farming which is not beneficial to either party, and the State as well as the tenant is a loser. To this GG years’ tenure, too, is tacked on a curious set of conditions which may be described either as a semi-freehold scheme, or as a Government loans proposal, for the tenant is induced to lend back to the Govern-

ment 00 per cent, of the purchase money by the promise of relief from covenants after he has refunded 50 per cent., and he must take his money back when the lease expires. Meantime he can imagine himself, if his imagination be vivid enough, to be the bloated part proprietor of a freehold in partnership with His Majesty the King, in whom the land is nominally vested. Talk about setting up a “ landed aristocracy ” after this- but we pass on to an even more ludicrous proposal. “ Tenants under the 999 years’ leases (including leases under the Land for Settlements Act) ” we are told are “to have the option of converting into the new—and this either at the original or the present value.” Well, as none of the holders of 999 -years’ leases are anything but sane people, and as we expect no sudden outbreak of insanity among them until they have tried to discover some sense in the proposal, there is not the smallest danger that any one of them will surrender under the terms offered, so we need not waste further time on that clause. And now comes in the sop for the freeholders. “ Tenants under the old leases (not including leases under the Land for Settlements Act) to have the additional option of surrendering the leases, when the land will be sold by public competition, burdened with valuation for improvements.” This would give much-needed relief to such Crown tenants as are suffering as those on the notorious Momohaki block have suffered through the selection of land for closer settlement that was utterly unsuitable for the purpose: but why should the land be sold when it reverts to the status of Crown land, and no other Crown land beside that coming into possession of the Crown in this way can be sold ? What are the special reasons for this special treatment ? Don’t guess, think it out, and the conclusion is inevitable that there are two reasons ; first, that the Cabinet is divided on the question of freehold versus leasehold, and that, the leaseholders being in a majority in the Cabinet, the first clause was carried by the majority, that no Crown lands should be sold, and then at the tail end of the policy-making discussion, and to please the freeholders both inside and outside the Cabinet, it was agreed as a compromise that freeholds could be obtained on these rejected leasehold areas. Secondly, because the freeholder section of the Cabinet had by this time convinced their single tax and Trades Council colleagues that they knew something about land, and

that this portion, at any rate, was not suitable for leaseholds, and could only be profitably farmed as freehold. That

that is the character of all the remaining Crown lands need not trouble these gentlemen at present. It will be time enough for them to come to that conclusion when those remaining Crown lands have repeated the failures under the leasehold tenure, and if they are still in the Cabinet when that happens there is nothing to prevent them sitting in solemn conclave once more and altering the law to permit sales. Any old farmer would correct that mistake now ; but farmers or not politicians or single taxers.