Land Tenures as affecting-Motueka.

Motueka Star, Volume I, Issue 29, 19 November 1901, Page 4

Land Tenures as affectingMotueka.

[contributed]

Our first proposition is: That the occupiers have the right to purchase the freehold. Before answering that question off-hand, we will view the attitude of the present Government on the land question. It is now well known that they have set their face against what they term any further alientaion of Crown lands, thus laying down the principle that it is desirable as much land as is already held by the *Crovvn, i.e., the people, the State, should continne to be so held, and further, that it is desirable more land should be acquired by the State. Both principles, it mast be admitted, they consistently contend for, and that public opinion endorses their action is evident by the amount of support accorded them during the last ten years, even if we discount the number of votes they received in consideration of other attributes they may or may not possess. There is no gainsaying that their land policy had the endorsement of the majority of the people of the Colony. The condition of affairs political at the last election was, that in the congested centres of population (with the exception of the Empire City, Wellington) Government candidates were returned for every seat ; so by this we may deduce that the landless people of the Colony, being well organised, and as a rule members of the

various Unions, solidly supported the Government. We may assume they wanted many things done, but, above all, they wanted land. They had no money to buy freeholds, but they wanted to occupy land, and they believed that the policy of the Government benefited them in giving them a chance to occupy land on more favorable terms than could be obtained from private landlords. Now then ; from what we can see going on at the present time, there is a likelihood of there being a great struggle between the agriculturists and others, in the occupation of land to secure to themselves the freehold light to it ; that this is the fundamental plank of the new Fanners Union is now fully recognised. Seeing that the settlers on the Cheviot estate, a new leasehold settlement lately recruited, are protesting against this proposal—and it would seem that they only of the agriculturists are in opposition, all others having accepted it—we may assume, with this one exception, that all members of that Union subscribe to this principle, and are desirous of becoming landlords. So would all the members of the other Unions also, if they had an opportunity, and saw any prospect of becoming individually possessed of as much land as they wanted. This cannot be denied, for have we. not seen that to be a landlord is much more i profitable under present conditions than to be a tenant ?

This desire on the part of all to secure these privileges to themselves individually is only natural, for do not all desire to become rich ; or at least become independent of the charity of others, and the instinct to acquire land of one's own is essentially a British sentiment, and though, it may be a foolish one our present land laws in connection with freehold rights accentuate this feeling in the minds of all. , This being the case and the principle of " sufficient for the day " being the one on which the large majority of"

electors vote that an immediate and tangible, benefit may be gained by them individually rather than calculating; the proUable .result of theii votes as-affecting their children. "We have to» recognise this general desire to see Mi-eland ofi their own as an element determining the fate of those who as candidates-will not promise to do all in their power to enable all to secure to themselves, as their own individual property, a portion o£ the land of the country they call their own. We have reviewed the powers and privileges possessed 1 by the landowner. The with these same privileges, that their children may during successive generations have a power over the children of those who* have parted with their land,, or may come to this country not being able to acquire any ? Or, should we reduce the power and privileges already possessed by the landlord ? I think the amendment will be carried with few dissentients. It has to be admitted that there are places in the colony where land may be got at low i*ates of rental from private owners, but the conditions of life in such localities do not compensate people who make sacrifices and go there. Thereore, the ordinary conveniences provided in what we may term settled stricts, such as schools, roads", bridges companionships, etc., all help to determine the value of the land, and tiie private landlord, having bought cheap, is willing to let cheap, that he may induce people to make sacrifices and go there hoping that others will follow, tax themselves, provide ' the roads,.schools, etc., at their own ex pense, and if he himself may not reap an immediate advantage Ms children or heirs may do so, at the expense of the landless. Another question is, have those already possessing freehold any right to deny others the privilege of holding laud on the same terms ? It may be said they are willing to grant this privilege ; very well, when the whole area of land is taken up (each owner possessing the right to dispose of it as he will) and some areas being smaller than others, and when subdivided again and again amongst the inheritors the area to each becoming too small to provide the means of existence, those so situated will be compelled to ask of holders of larger areas that they will sell or allow them to occupy some of theii surplus land. What then ? why we immediately revert to the present order of things, of which we now c >mplain. Having arrived at this stage, we come now to the question of remedyiug the present evil-;, and ask is it better to continue and impx-ove on the principles laid down by the present administration, by keeping the land or as much of it as the State has and can acquire from time to time, in the hands « f the State, or t ) make provision for supplying freehold titles t:> all who require them. The Farmer's Union says the latter. The others Unions the former. Which is right? Aie either? I leave the question to each individual having the responsibility of a vote to ."•termine.

To be continued

W. J. Moffatt