THE COMING FIGHT. Freehold versus Leasehold.

Free Lance, Volume IV, Issue 195, 26 March 1904, Page 6

THE COMING FIGHT. Freehold versus Leasehold.

SEEMS quite evident that the vexed question of enabling Crown tenants to acquire the fee simple of their holdings will engage & good deal of attention m Parliament next session. The Leader of the Opposition has already chosen it ac his war-cry. In his recent manifesto, Mr. Masssy has even said that if a man is not prepared to pledge himself unreservedly m favour of the freehold he is not fit to represent a country or any other constituency. » • • On the other hand, some of the Opposition journals have been girding hard at King Dick for alleged unwillingness to commit himself on this question. At the point of the bayonet they command him to state his intentions, and because he doesn't make categorical answers to their catechism, he is accused of sitting on the rail, deceiving the people with lair promises, etc In short they lefuse to give him any credit for sincerity or honesty of speech They are always searching "for signs of dissimulation beneath plain words * * • For instance, it is leported that the Premier, at Fairlie last week, "spoke warmly m defence of the leasehold for Crown tenants"; also, that he advised the settlers not to be led a-way by statements of Opposition members who, m advocating the freehold, were merely working it m the interests of money-lenders and their agents Of course, it is not to be supposed that the Premier accused them of doing this designedly for the benefit of money-lenders. His argument was that the effect would be to play into the hands of such a class And then he made the positive declaration that if the Government were out-voted in the House on this question, he would at once apply for a dissolution, and appeal to the people. That ought to be direct enough, but it won't satisfy the Opposition press King Dick must swear to them a, solemn oath that he doesn't mean any of the subterfuges they arc suggesting. At any rate, it is a bit more definite than Mr Massey's pronouncement, for even a leading oigan of the Opposition admits that it can't make out from his words "whether he supports the demand of the Farmers' Union to its full extent." And it plaintively asks, "Is Mr Massey going to commit the Opposition to the policy of retrospective tampering with existing contracts 1" • » * That is the point. If existing contracts are to be upset for the purpose of enabling a noisy section cf Crown tenants to convert their State leaseholds into freeholds, then there's bound to be a row. It would be tantamount to a gross breach cf faith with the public creditor. Large private estates have been bought by

the Government with borrowed money for the declared purpose of bcmg cut up and settled under the lease-m-perpetuity system. To con\ert those leaseholds into freeholds now would be dishonest. There would be some danger of the moneys thus realised being expended m other directions In that case, the countty would be open to the imputation of having raised the original loans under false pretences. Let the people make up their minds on the question. It would be calamitous to permit any retrospective tinkering with existing contracts solemnly entered into. Public policy and the welfare of the country both demand that there shall be no increase m the facilities for the alienation of Crown lands The State leaseholds must be maintained intact, otherwise the entire system of lcase-m-perpetuity falls to the ground like a pack of cards. We take King Dick's words at Fairlie last week in their plain and direct sense, that he will stand firm on this issue And, if he does we have no doubt the people will be strongly at his back, and will see him safely bb rough.