THE N.Z.N.L. SETTLEMENT COMPANY.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 110, 19 April 1884, Page 2

THE N.Z.N.L. SETTLEMENT COMPANY.

The following letter appears in Labor and is a reply by Mr. Moss in answer to some criticisims passed upon that gentleman in the course of which some “ high fatuling ** bunkum had been indulged in for the purpose engrossing the above notorious Company Sir, —Surely you and I cannot be speaking of the same Native Land Settlemenf Company. Yours is some beneficient body ready fo settle “ honest working men with or without money on the land.” Mine has never given the least sign of this intention, To save mistake, let me say that the Company that I referred to is the one that was taken up by Mr. Thomas Russell during his recent visit, that the chairman is Dr. Pollen, the Gisborne manager Mr. DeLautour, and one of the Gisborne Directors, Mr. Allan Macdonald. Also that other members of the Grey party, in the House and out of it, are connected with the Company, and that it was considered certain the Private Bill, to which I objected from its first inception, would easily by their aid become law. If this is the company to which you refer, I can only express my regret that a paper claiming to represent the interests of Labour, should lend itself to excuse one of the most daring attempts to bend the Legislature to private purposes that has yet been known in New Zealand. The Colony owes the defeat of the attempt, mainly to the firm and straightforward opposition of your bete noir, Mr. John Bryce. On the Land Question generally we are not likely to agree. Your attitude seems to me that of the vigilant Coast Guardsman, perched on a lofty cliff, sweeping with telescope the distant horizon, while a cargo of contrabhnd is being landed at his feet. You would destroy all private ownership of land and make the present freeholders State tenants. I believe this to be contrary to the present nature of man and things, and that the change would cause misery far outbalancing any possible good. I also believe that so destructive a change is needless, and that in aiming at it you are distracting attention from all practicable and effective reform. We are not in Ireland with 20 million acres, a powerful landlord class, and six million people, but in New Zealand with 70 million acres, no landlord class, and only half a million people. In Ireland the National League has formally rejected Mr. George’s paoposal to nationalise the land, and in New Zealand the proposal would be still more certain of rejection. In the meantime land is a commodity and has an exchangeable value, and is likely to keep this character notwithstanding your vehement denunciations and your profuse flagiarisms from Mr. George’s great book to the contrary. Take away the privileges that prompt people to invest in land before any other commodity, and which lie at the root of the mischief in the old country. Already much has been done in that direction. Land in New Zealand does not carry with it exceptiodal social influence. The great land owners are not the rules of the country, nor have they exclusive right to fish or game. The residential vote, the equal distribution of seats, the payment of members, and the vote by ballot, prevent the acquisition of exceptional politisal power. The Land Transfer Act provides for cheap and easy conveyance, and takes no cognisance of any other than the registered owner. Extend the spirit of the Act to all land without distinction, and the most fruitful sources of evil in the old country will cease to exist in New Zealand. Abolish the exceptional privileges connected with the Law of Fixture and the Law of Distraint, and place the owner of Land in the same position as the owner of any other commodity. Levy the local rates and taxes on the unimproved capital value of the land, and let buildings and improvements go free. Having effected these practicable reforms, leave people to deal with their land their own way, and thus encourage the improvement to which freedom and individuality are indispensible. I believe that the measures thus indicated would be amply to guard against future undue monopoly of land. If they did not, the people of New Zealend will have the political power in their own hands, and with the ample means of education now at their command, they would know how to use that power promptly and effectively whenever the occasion might arise.—Yours, &c., F. J. Moss.