THE LAND BILL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1964, 27 December 1906, Page 2

THE LAND BILL.

To tlic .Editor of the Times. In your editorial comment on my Inst letter you display considerable siull in tile evasion or tlie direct issue; in fact you seem to have been more or less “offside” throughout our small controvery. The questions which r intended to raise* were these: —1. Have State tenants a right to demand that their landlords shall sell to them the lTeeehokl ol' their holdings f 2. it such a claim is a just one as against the general Government. why is it not a just claim against tno municipal or private landlord:-' if the State is obliged to part with the land why should it be tied down to sell only" to those tenants who have shown a desire to evade the conditions of their contract instead of selling public property to the best advantage ? The JVsiruiors 1 Union has now formulated its objections to the Land Hill, and the first clause goes direct to me root of the matter, in other words that clause reads:—“State tenants demand the freeehoki because it suits tile money lender that they have it.” Toil asK why i support tlie Jiill without prolesssing to rully understand it. Does anyone fully understand any law? Do lawyers and judges? j lien why are there Courts of Appeal? Why should a layman say : "The law is so and so.” when a barrister says, “1 a mof opinion that the law means this and unit. Von ask why i support Socialism without specifying which variety 1 uphold, There are many sorts of Socialism—all good.-—Socialism is like beer; some sorts are better than others, but there is no .such thing as bad heel-, aiiv time you may nave thirty or foi tv columns of space to spare T shall lie happy to explain the matter more fully.—l am, etc., CO.OP.