The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, DEC. 13, 1906.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1957, 13 December 1906, Page 2

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. GISBORNE, DEC. 13, 1906.

I The way in which the Premier deal with the land question at Napier showed evident signs of weakness in the attitude of the Government towards it, because the whole tone of his address in that connection was more apologetic than argumentative, and a straight hint was given that if certain provisions were not in the Land Bill now he “ would undertake to see that it was done.” When ho thus softens down on one aspect of the Bill why not on all ? and we believe that he is I ready to do so, for, like his predecesN sor, he shows a decided inclination to keep his ear to the ground and to follow the lino of least resistance. Already the Bill has grown into a very different shape from that assumed at its nativity, and notwithstanding the blatant boasts of the Government that they would stand or fall by it we now find on the authority of the Premier himself that it is not an unalterable quantity, and that they are not only 'willing but anxious to alter it to suit the wishes of the farmers whom they profess to lovo with a love that is indent and pure. But what can the farmers or anyone else think of a party of politicians who administers to them a slap in the face and when it is resented turn round and say, “We humbly beg your pardon, we didn’t mean a bit of it. Wo thought to rob you of the freehold because it is

opposed to singlo tax principles, and bocnxitiO we thought it was tor your own bonolit that you should not bo trusted witli tho privilogo of owning your homos—a privilege! which in our opinion only city elwedlors sboulel enjoy —but now that you don’t want us to elo that, we will endeavor to please yem if you elon't kick us out of our bille's ” Such a weathercock polities**.! programme is in reality not worth discussing, no matter what its intrinsic

merits may bo in other respects, and tho country sboulel recognise the fact that tho politician who will sell his prin ciples for ollico is not to be trusted any moro than tho man who would swindle you in aelon I tor tho sake of tho gain it would bo to him. With tho characteristic indofinitonoss of the man who

has no tixod opinions and is anxious to pleaso ovorvboely, t’ir Joseph Ward told liis audience that “ Tho valuo of 1 tho freeholds in tho colony- was ‘ 1177,000,000 at the present moment, ‘ and the Government certainly did 1 not suggoat taking this away. There ‘ would bo no breaking of the contract ‘ betwcon leaseholders anel tho Crown. ‘ No proposal to broak the sacred con- ‘ tracts cither with freeholders or ‘ leaseholders and the State would bo ‘ entertained for a moment,’’ and almost in the next breath ho said, Tho ‘ Government had no prejudice, but ‘ when it was recognised that in spite 1 of the introduction of restrictive Ac's ‘ thevo had been an aggregation of ‘ large estates, lie believed it would b» ‘ admitted that repressive measures ‘ wove necessary.” Now what could he have meant by “ repressive moss urea ” if “ no proposal to brock the sacred contracts either with freeholders or leaseholders would be entertained tor a moment ”? aud how does tho statement fit in with tho £.15,000 limitation proposals ? Is not that in itself a gross violation of tho “sacred contract with tho freeholder?’’. Of course it is ; but such are the ethics of political weathercocks who are forced to mix their words in order to afford some solace to those holding opposite views. Now if Sir Joseph Ward had “ lashed out straight’’for tho confiscatory method on the broad principle of public necessity without pretending that it is anything hut what it is, one could at least applaud him tor. his manliness ; but wnon he says that in it there is no pretence of violation of a “ sacred contract ” those who have a

regard for the sacred truth can simply not behove him But whon there is nnother and a better way of gaining the same end by the imposition, of a progressive land tax, the adoption of the principle of confiscation, and the setting at naught of the sacred con tract, is not the correct way of gaining the end in view. For many years the late Premier tickled the ears of city voters by threats of imposing a progressive land tax, which was then regarded by him and the Labor party throughout the country as the proper way to deal with the question of reducing the lavgo arers held by single individuals, and anyone who would daro to oppose that notion then was assigned a special rank known by an unflattering pseudonym; but to-day the Premier openly condemns it for tho reason, he says, that “it would compel owners to get rid of their land quickly,” and ho prefers to give the “ social pest ? ” ten years’ grace and then slaughter them wholesale because he professes to think that tho progressive tax would cause too great a rusn of land into tho market and thus disorganise values, aud he would like tue owners to believe that Ms great care in this direction is to conserve their interests, whereas, as a matter of fact, his one idea is to maintain tho present exorbitant Government values and to see that no one shall be able to buy land at its true value, that is the value based upon what the land can produce ou an average senes of years, and not the fictitious price it commands when the demand is far greater than the area available. But in reality the progressive land tax would have no such effect, unless it partakes of the nature of a penalty tax, and as that rests with the House of Representative and tho Government itself it w<U bo seen how flimsy is tb.9 Premier’s excuse for throwing this Liberal plank overboard. But there is a more equitable way than either of settling this question effectively, and of which we have an example i a the French law which compels the division of every ostato on tne depth of tho owner, and the result of that is that for a veiy long time there has not been a large estate in that country ; yet no one has been robbed of his property end no “ e icred contract ” has been violated. Under such a law the thing rectifies

itself in one generation, and it would have done so in tfc’.3 country while the Premier and his predecessor have been talking about it if they had been seriously inr'ined to put their professed principles to the test; but, if that had happened they would have had to find something elso to dangle before the eyes of city voterj and therein lies their whole di(flcuifcy, for if the land question were put aside to morrow the Government would find itself, bke Othello, with its occupation gone.