Land Tenures as affecting Motueka

Motueka Star, Volume I, Issue 26, 8 November 1901, Page 4

Land Tenures as affecting Motueka

[contributed]. Having shown that time, which brings many changes, may bring with it a claim from the native owners to be allowed to “re-enter on and resume possession,” we have then to adjudicate upon that claim. Is it justifiable on their part to prefer it ? By the laws governing land leased from European owners, we would have to admit the claim. Shall we deny the same right to the natives, all of whom may be said to he loyal British subjects even as much as are we ourselves, foi it is only lately we had evidence of the fact, by the eagerness they showed to be allowed to fight our battles in South Africa. We have no desire to be left landless. Should they and their children be so left? -That is the question that now presents itself. Apart from our British principles of equal rights to all subjects, irrespectively of colour or nationality, we should take a higher ground, viz, that of the good of all humanity, and grant them the same priveleges and rights we claim for ourselves and our children. Is it not true that we have allowed large blocks of country to be sold right out to individual Europeans having the sole right to dispose of it as they will, and have they not in many instances reaped huge benefits from what we term the unearned increment. It is said that the township of Eketahuna, in the North Island is an instance of this, the, occupiers of most of the land in that township being there at the will of one landlord. Of course, it is unlikely that he will give them, notice to quit while the law allows him to exploit them periodically and extort more rent as the place advances, and public money is spent in enhancing-values, but the fact remains that he has that power, and as we feel that we are yearly multiplying the power, of our native landowners, so are the people of Eketahuna doing the same thing in the case of one individual. We awe colonising and making a new nation''in a new country and the instances here* given of what increase in land values mean to the owners already are but a very small number of landlords so advant: : ■ misly situated. It is true in the case of the European holder, that in consideration of the priveleges he enjoys we tax his land, but there is no denying that every chance he gets to make a readjustment of rent at renewals of leases he shunts as large a proportion as he can of the tax on his tenants by increasing their rent to the utmost limit allowed him by the la ,v of competition which exists, and is even countenanced by the tenants themselves, who do not, hesitate when the opportunity, presents itself to outbid their neighbors, in order to secure possession of land ; all this is certainly to the benefit of the landowner who must laugh at the frantic efforts of people who have no land of their own to still further enrich him. And what is rent? And how is it, determined under these conditions ? It means that the man who is willing to give the largest proportion of the fruits of his toil (and the fruit of landlords toil in the case of the agriculturalist) to the - landlord fixes the rental value of land, and we have instances locally- even when the consensus of public opinion is that the rent paid for certain land is above its maximum value yet some one, or perhaps many, will be willing - to give - a substantial sum of money for the privelege of being allowed to pay a rent admittedly excessive. This is called purchasing the good will. Whose good will ? The landlord’s ? No doubt, he had a friendly feeling toward his new tenant, who has by this action in purchasing on such terms admitted that.

the rent was low and the landlord looks forward with anticipation to the time when Ihe lease will expire and a renewal is wanted that he may raise the rent. But it maybe said that the fixing and reassessment' is done by' arbitration. Tliak is so in the case of the Trusts. .But can the arbitrator, the tenant’s nominee,,deny that his client the tenant,. paidi money that he might have the privelege of paying a rent which he of course, as is only natural, now desires to have reduced. The position is an impossible one for the tenant’s arbitrator to take up, and should he succeed in maintaining the rate previously paid instead of it being increased it is only done by the sympathy of the nominee with the tenants, or Chat of the umpire who may be called sin to decide the question between the disputants. Are all these statements facts ? No one will deny it. Therefore, in such circumstances, the natural desire of occupiers of land is that they may become ownersof it; freeholders in fact, with all the rights and priveleges allowed the ownersof the land on which they are tenants. The next questions-to be dealt with are, Ist, Are they entitled to this right ? 2nd, Is any onedndividual entitled to have a freehold under present conditions.

To be continued.

W. J. Moffatt.