CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 971, 20 August 1881, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

~We do not hold ourselves responsible for opinions expressed by our correspondents].

“LAND HO!”

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l have received a copy of your paper, dated the 30th July, containing a critique on my pamphlet, “Land Ho!” My feelings on reading it were rather “ mixed,” and after I had finished I could hardly understand the drift of your remarks with regard to the scheme propounded in the pamphlet. You appear to have acted on the principle of the Magistrate who having summed up a case in favor of one party gave judgment for the other. In one paragraph you say “ there should be a law passed immediately (if it can be done) to prevent the wholesale monopoly of large areas of land in the hands of a single individual.” A few lines farther on you say, “ unless we adopt a Communistic law we must admit the claim of every man to an indefeasible title to the possessions, &c.” Now, is there not something contradictory in these two sentences, as I presume by the tone of your remarks you consider land as one of those possessions. There is no one who more thoroughly disbelieves in Communism than I do, but let us understand what Communism is. The nearest approach to a formula for it that I can find is this — Communism asserts the right of all to the results of individual labor. This is Communism. Everybody is to work, and everybody is to share equally in the results of that work. Now, whatever might be possible in an ideal state of society, where everybody was honest, everybodv was sober, andTverybody was industrious, and where everybody worked with all his energy and all his ability for the general good, it is impossible for this idea to be carried out at present, and to at-1 tempt to do so would only result in the destruction of all individual energy and industry. But I maintain that State ownership of land and a system of leasing such as sketched in my pamphlet has nothing Communistic about it. The occupier rents from the State, in the first instance, at a rental calculated at a per centage on the value of the property, afterwards at a rate determined by public tender, with, however, such an advantage over a would-be new tenant as ensures a fixity of tenure so long as old tenant is prepared to pay a just rent to the State. Whatever benefit he may derive from the occupation or cultivation of the land is his absolute property, and justly so, and whatever improvement whether in‘building, draining, clearing, or any other manner he may make is amply secured to him, but, and here is the strong point in favor of State ownership of land, whatever increase in the value of the land may result from National progress or National expenditure becomes the property of the State, and is received in the form of increased rents. At the present time, and under the present system of land tenure, the whole of this “ unearned increment ” is handed over to the owner of the land, and we come to the statement of another formula, viz., freehold ■ land tenure confers upon a few individuals ■ the results of collective labor, which is air ’ injustice. Every person is entitled to the i entire advantage to be derived from his own industry, but the present system Zives the holder of freehold property a great-fteal more I than this. Land is increased in value by the ■ results of National progress, and by the exj penditure of National money in roads, rail' s ways, etc., and the whole benefit of this NaL tional progress and National expenditure is ’ handed over to the fortunate possessor of freehold land. By state ownership of land this

injustice is prevented, and the individual by receiving the full advantage of his personal energy anc industry, is protected from the evil effects of Communism, but is compelled by the payment of a just rent to contribute his fair proportion of the National revenue. To complete the series I may give another formula— State oivnership of land while securing to the individual the full results of individual labor also secures to the State the results of combined labor. The justice of State ownership of land is set forth by such thinkers as Herbert Spencer and tlm late J. S. Mill, and is rapidly being acknowledged as the only just system of land tenure. I trust you will give the matter further consideration, and believe that by doing so you will be convinced that the scheme is just, practicable, and a permanent solution of the land question.—Yours, etc., Alexander Joyce. Lyttelton, August 11th, 1881.