CROWN TENANTS AND THE FREEHOLD.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2134, 17 July 1907, Page 3

CROWN TENANTS AND THE FREEHOLD.

THE “ORIGINAL VALUE” PROPOSAL. During the debate on the Address-in-Reply, the statement was made by several members on the Government side of the House that the Leader of the Opposition has not been consistent in regard to his attitude as to the granting of the option of the freehold to Crown tenants.

Mr. Massey, in replying on tho opening night of the debate to some remarks on the subject, said that in each case ho was willing that the cajiital value of tho holding should be apportioned as between the interests of the State on tho one hand and the interest of the settler on the other, and that the option of the freehold should be granted accordingly. Tho result, he said, would be exactly what ho had always advocated. Mr. Lang, in liis speech, referred to the matter, and said that it was not true that (as had been repeatedly stated) Mr. Massey had modified his proposals. To show the incorrectness of the assertion, Mr.

Lang quoted a statement made by Mr. Massey in liis recent speech at Patumahoe, and also read extracts from two speeches delivered b->’ the Leader of the Opposition in the House two years ago. In his recent Patumahoe speech Mr. Massey said he was willing the whole question should be referred to competent actuaries, who would divide the capital value into the interest between the State on the one hand and settlers upon the other, and df in giving the option of purcliaso the settler was required to make any payment to the State, then let tho pavment be made. He did not wish to rob the State of a single farthing. Mr. Lang then quoted from Hansard to show that Mr. Massey on October 3rd., 1905, said:

“There was another statement of the Premier’s that he (Mr. Massey) proposed to give to the Crown tenants, in connection with the freehold proposals, one milion of the State’s monev. Ho desired to make a challenge to the Premier to submit to actuaries the freehold proposals which he (Mr. Massey) had formulated for his report, and if the report of tho actuary showed there was the slightest loss to the Crown or State in those projiosals which'he had made for giving to the tenants the freehold he would withdraw from the position he had taken up.” In another speech later in the same day, Mr. Massey said, “If tho right lion, the Premier would refer my proposals to the actuaries of the Government, and tho actuaries showed that by my proposals there would be a loss to the State, I would withdraw from the position I have taken up. That is a fair position, but I am confident there would be no loss. On the contrary there would he a gain.” “That,” said Mr. Lang, “was the attitude which the Leader of ' tl /; Oppostion had taken up. There-had been a howl from the other side that if the Crown tenants got the right to acquire tho freehold at the original value, plus interest and compound interest, there would be a loss to the State. The Leader of the Opposition had always taken up the position that there would be no loss to the State, and he was willing to refer tho matter to competent authorities to say whether that was so or not. They said it would ho robbery of tho State to allow the Crown to acquire the freehold. “Where, Mr. Lang asked, “would the robbery come in?” He contended that it would be an excellent bargain for tho Government, as although the State was now getting nominally four and five pel cent from tho tenants, there were certain expenses connected with the matter, and the probability was tiiat the Government did not get moro than 3i per cent net for its money. If they allowed the tenants ti acquire the freehold, the purchase monev could be used in buying more land and putting more settlers On the soil, and thus save "oing on the London money market.