CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 1009, 8 December 1881, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

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

NATIONALIZATION OF THE LAND.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —Kindly allow me space for a few words in reply to your leading article of the 3rd inst., as the advocates of nationalization hold that it entirely misrepresents the nationalization scheme. In the first place, I may remark, the utterances of the Hon. John Hall, as quoted by you, are exactly what one might expect from that gentleman. He is himself a large landholder, and the representative of that class ; nationalization threatens the supremacy of that class ; and, therefore, it is natural that he should denounce and ridicule nationalization. His denunciation of it is to my mind the surest possible proof that it is sound, practicable, and desirable. Fortunately, it is not likely that all the people of New Zealand will suffer themselves to be bound by the Hon. John Hall’s opinion ; and against his opinion I think we may fairly set the opinions of such men as Herbert Spencer and John Stuart Mill—men who, in mental development and power, are as much superior to John Hall as he is to a lunatic or an ape. In speaking of nationalization as a “ new theory,” he certainly displayed an amount of ignorance very astonishing in a man in his position. The name nationalization may be new, but the theory is certainly not new, it having been thought out early in the present century, if not before. But whether it be new or old is of no importance; the really important is whether it is a sound theory—practicable, just, and beneficial.

You say, “We pointed out some time ago that turning the inhabitants of the earth into nations of tenants, even with a long term, as proposed by Mr. Locke, of 999 years, would end in moral and physical disaster ; it would destroy at once the dependent and independent spirit of men, and transfer the real power of the people into the hands of an autocratic Government.” How can it “ destroy at once the dependent and independent spirit of men ?” Dependence can only be destroyed by making them independent; independence can only be destroyed by making them dependent : your assertion, therefore, is logically unsound, and needs no refutation, as it contradicts itself. Bandom assertions, such as that, are not argument, allow me to remind you. How would nationalization “ transfer the real power of the people from themselves into the hands of an autocratic Government ?” The Government has not, and cannot have, any power but that which is delegated to it by the people, under our system of representative government; nor can it possibly become autocratic, except by complete abolition of our constitution ; nor can the people transfer their power as you suppose, except by deliberately surrendering the franchise. Government is the representative and servant of the people—not the master, though it is sometimes allowed to usurp that position ; nor has it any power but that which the people confer on it ; and if it misuses that power, it may be impeached, or turned out of office—just as one discharges a disobedient or unfaithful servant. This is the true position of representative government, the remembrance of which would prevent many blunders in the discussion of political matters.

You say that you much fear that “ our local candidates, especially, are riding a new-found steed to death.” Which of our local candidates is advocating nationalization ? Not Mr. Locke, certainly, for his leasehold idea is only a sort of bastard or mongrel nationalization, not the true article, and would, probably, prove even more mischievous and unjust, than the present system, for it would mean protection to the present freeholders, t.e., it would give them an immense preponderance of power, and would subject the proposed leaseholders to a most grossly unfair disadvantage in the competition for existence. Not Mr. Gannon, for not one of his speeches even hints at the principle. Not Mr. McDonald, for his only idea is to “ give the land to the people to do what they like with.” Captain Porter is the only one of the four who has even hinted at nationalization, and he only in the mildest possible way. In his speech at McFarlane’s Hall, he said that he thought it was time [that the reckless alienation of the land was put a stop to; that as the debt incurred by purchasing the land would be left to posterity, it would be only fair to leave to posterity some of that property for which the debt was incurred. Surely this is not riding the “ newfound steed ” to death.

You speak of nationalising the people “out of, and not on to their land.” This very remarkable utterance is evidently due to a misconception ; and the same misconception pervades and vitiates the whole of your article. Nationalization means state ownership of land ; so much you evidently understand, but your misconception results from an erroneous interpretation of the word “state.” This word is frequently used as a synomyn of “ government,” and it is evident that this is the way in which you have interpreted it; whereas, in this connexion “ state ” means “the aggregate of the individuals forming a community,” i.e., the

whole of the people of the Colony. Now, if all the people own all the land, how can it be eaid*that they are “ nationalized out of ” their land ? All the land belongs to all the people, by rights, and not merely the people of this generation, but also the people of generations yet to come ; but all the people do not want to be land culti-

vators —that is to say, every man, woman, and child does not want to individually cultivate hisorher individual share of the general inheritance, so the land is held in joint ownership by all, but is leased to the cultivating classes, so that the community may be benefitted ; but the non-cultivators do not thereby renounce their joint ownership, nor invest the cultivators with absolute ownership of any portion of the land. That is a thing which no king, government, or people can possibly have any right to do. Even if all the people of New Zealand at the present day were to agree to sell the land, still they could have no right to sell, nor could anyone have any right to buy ; for the coming generations have a dormant joint interest with us in the land, and we can have no moral right to sell their property. If we do sell, we are thieves, for we rob them of their inheritance. Now, as the Government is the representative and servant of the people, and as it has no power but that which it derives from the people, it follows that it can have no moral right to do that which the have no moral right to do; therefore, the Government has no moral right to sell the land.—Q.E.D. Your position—“that all shall bona Jide occupy the land ” —applies only to the cultivating classes, and would cut off all shopkeepers, mechanics, literary men, etc., from all ownership or interest in the land ; whereas the true principle is that these have a dormant joint interest in the land—that all own the land, though only the cultivators own the produce of the land. You say, “ Mr. Hall said he did not think this Colony would ever be monopolised by large estate holders.” As a whole, perhaps not; but we must not overlook the fact that a very large portion of its best lands are already so monopolised, and that private speculators and land-sharking companies are trying their hardest to monopolise still more. Even if they do ultimately “ burst up ” these large estates, the injustice of allowing them to pocket thousands of pounds of unearned in-

crement still remains. In strict equity, the unearned increment is the property of the State, and, when we allow the land speculators to pocket it, we, in plain English, rob the wealth-produc-ing classes. remarks about “ turning our State officers into an oligarchy of landlords” is founded on the misconception previously alluded to, for it is not the State officers, but the State, i.e., the people as a whole—who would be the sole owners and landlords; the Government, or State officers, merely acting as their agents, representatives, or servants. You report the Hon. John Hall as saying, “ One such theory was that great gain, especially as to taxation, in the future would flow from leasing instead of selling Crown lands. He doubted whether, even if this were done, the supposed gain would be realised.” Let me show you how this gain would be realised. The lands of the Colony are steadily rising in value, and, with increase of population, and the construction of harbors, roads, bridges, and railways, must rise still higher; therefore, if the lands are sold, this increase in value merely means increased wealth to the fortunate freeholders, while if the lands are leased it means increased wealth tc the Colony at large. If we go on selling, there must come a time when all the land will be sold, and then consequently, our revenue from that source must cease, and increased taxation must be resorted to, to supply the place of that revenue. If we nationalize the land, we do not come to the end of our land revenue; it is permanent; the rents will give a constant, and, up to a certain point, a steadily-increasing income, thus obviating the necessity of increased taxation, and, in the course of time, materially lightening our present heavy burden of taxes. Therefore, the gain would be realised.—Q.E.D. For information as to some other

advantages of nationalization, I would refer your readers to my letter in your issue of the 26th ult., as, were I to repeat that information here, it would occupy too much of your valuable space. This subject is one that is of the greatest importance to the community at large —no mere personal matter—or I would not Have ventured to trouble you with this rather lengthy letter. Trusting that you will have the courtesy to insert this, so as to give “ the other side ” a fair hearing, I am, etc., Reformer.