THE LAND QUESTION

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 1004, 26 November 1881, Page 3

THE LAND QUESTION

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In the published report by the Standard, of my country meeting, there are some inaccuracies which would not have appeared had I had time to personally correct the proofs. t the Patutahi meeting at the end of final paragraph I am reported to have “ persuaded ” the Natives to hand over 20,000 acres for nothing, and in the next sentence the total number of acres reads 37,000. Sir, the total acreage was 57,000 acres, and the Natives on finding the quantity of land ceded by them did not amount to that acreage, at my request, consented to make up the difference. There is, also, another error, in reference to the 20,000 acres given to the friendly Natives and bought back. The report makes me say that I bought

it for 6d an acre. This should have been about ten shillings and sixpence.— Yours, &c., T. W. Porter. [We gladly make room for Captain Porter’s explanation, at the same time it is due to ourselves to state that we informed the candidates from the commencement of their candidature, that we could not undertake to report any of their addresses, except those delivered in Gisborne; but, if they wished their utterances, made elsewhere, published, they must furnish us with their own written statements. This has been done in each instance, and we have not curtailed a single line from, nor added aught to the “ copy ” furnished. Therefore, whatever inaccuracies there are in any of them, the candidates are solely responsible for.] —Ed. P.B.S.] TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —In the report of Capt. Porter’s speech to the electors at Patutahi, published in your supplement, it is made to appear that Captain Porter succeeded in recovering certain lands for t! e Government at the rate of 6d per acre. There is no doubt he did succeed in getting back valuable lands, but not at that price, neither did he say so. The price mentioned by Captain Porter was 10s 6d per acre ; and even at that rate much credit was due, and should favorably influence many in his behalf at the coming election.— Yours, &c., VINDEX. [The report was communicated to us, and was printed as sent. —Ed. P.B.S.]

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—We have now heard the addresses of three of the candidates ; and as the papers have made such comments as they deemed suitable on those addresses, I think we may fairly consider that the electors are at liberty to express their opinions as to the soundness of the views put forward by those candidates. Each one of them has touched on the land question, each has given us his idea as to the solution of the problem, and each has entirely failed to give an equitable solution. Capt. Porter relies chiefly on the “ monetary aid to small farmers ” idea; Mr. Gannon on the settlement of Native titles, subdivision of Native lands, and the suppression of the N. Z. Land and Settlement Company. Mr. Locke on —w'ell, it is not very easy to tell what Mr. Locke relies on. Probably Mr. Locke has no anxiety to solve the problem at a 1!. After all that has been written and said on this subject by the leading thinkers of our time, and with the histories of all the countries in the civilised world to aid us in forming a correct judgment, it seems really wonderful that such ignorance on this most important subject should still exist. The land question is forcing itself or the attention of politicians in every civilised country ; even in America, that country so well endow'ed with land, which has tens of millions of acres against our thousands ; yet no satisfactory legislation has yet been brought forward by any of these countries. Legislators have contented themselves with measures of temporary expediency, mere patch-work legislation, instead of going right to the root of the difficulty, and introducing a new system throughout. Why is this ? Because the legislating classes are the large land-holding classes, and they do not wish to upset a system so favorable to their own selfish interests. Do they care if the working classes are oppressed by their iniquitous laws ? Not they ; all that is in their favor, according to their views. If they can crush down the working classes to a condition little better than that of slaves, they will get their work done all the cheaper, and will be able to appropriate so much more of the general wealth—so they think. But little by little the wealth-producers are beginning to use their brains, and are preparing to assert their rights. They are giving serious attention to this problem ; and as soon as they have mastered it, they will demand that a just system of land tenure shall be established. The land holding interest is pow'erful—the majority of the members of both Houses of our legislature being large land-holders —but the productive classes are still more powerful by virtue of their numerical strength, which tells in elections. Even here, in Gisborne, this numerical strength will tell. He who wishes to represent this district in our House of Bepresentatives, must be prepared to give justice to the masses, not favors and privileges to the wealthy few. From end to end of New Zealand the working men electors are forming themselves into associations for the attainment of a more just system of land tenure ; in Dunedin, the “ Trades and Labor Union in Lyttelton and Christchurch, the “ Land Ho ! Associationin Auckland, the “Working Men’s Liberal Club ” (I am not sure whether I have this name correct), in Gisborne, the “ Land Tenure Reform League.” All these are working for a common object, and are gradually increasing their numerical strength. They make no noise about their work —there is no neeesssity for doing so —• but they are quietly educating the masses up to a comprehension of this subject, are organising their forces, and preparing for the struggle which is being gradually forced on us. These several combinations of working men are all aiming at Nationalization—the only true, equitable, and satisfactory solution of the problem—and any can-

didate who will pledge himself to support a Bill for Nationalizing the land will get their support. Give us Nationalization, and the small farmer will have no need of Captain Porter’s scheme of Government loans at 10 per cent., for he will be able to keep his capital in hand to work on, instead of paying it away in the purchase of land, while getting a tenure practically as good as freehold. Taking another view, this system would also benefit every other class in the community — land speculators excepted—by reducing our crushing taxation ; for the rents would supply a permanent, and steadily increasing revenue. Give us Nationalization, and the Native Land difficulty disappears at once, for the State becames the sole owner of land, consequently no subdivision of Native interests would be required, the whole cumbrous and expensive proceedings of the Native Lands Courts would be dispensed with, and the expense saved to the country. Nationalization would put an end to land-sharking, since it would prevent the acquisition of freehold, and forbid sub-letting. The State would be the only owner, and the only landlord. This system would be just to all, and w'ould not be opposed to the real interests of anyone, except the land-shark—him it would oppose, because his operations are founded on rank injustice. It is true that it would prevent the establishment of a “ landed aristocracy,” but, as that class has never yet been found to be of any benefit to any country, that fact certainly should not condemn the system.

Let us now r sum up some of the advantages of Nationalization. Ist. —- It W’ould supply a permanent and steadily increasing revenue, which would serve to lighten, and perhaps ultimately abolish taxation. 2nd—lt would conserve the land, so that the National estate should remain to the people throughout all generations, instead of being recklessly squandered by the Government, and monopolised by a few'favored individuals. 3rd—lt would put an end to all the difficulties connected with Native title. 4th —It would secure to each individual the full results of his own labor and energy, and would give to the State all the increase in value which might be due to other causes. sth—lt w'ould put a stop to land-sharking, which has been the curse of every country where it has been practised. 6th—lt would protect the producing classes from the extortionate demands of landlords—as lately exhibited in Ireland. 7th —It would secure the acknowledgment of the dormant joint interest of the whole people in the land, which, under the present system, is too often forgotten, or coolly repudiated, or ignored. This Nationalization is a thoroughly sound and equitable solution of the land problem, and the only sound and equitable solution. It goes to the root of the matter ; instead of trying to patch up an unsound system, it introduces a new' system, founded on just and practicable principles. Which of our would-be Bepresentatives will take up this idea, and pledge himself to support these principles ? He who does so may confidently rely on being returned. I wonder that no one asked the question of any of the candidates at the meetings lately held by them. Sooner or later Nationalization will gain the day, in spite of all opposition, and then the name of those w'ho have been foremost in introducing it will be held in high honor by their fellow-colonists. The importance of the subject is my only excuse for trespassing to such an extent on your valuable space, and I trust this excuse will be deemed sufficient.—l am &c., Reformer.