Rangitikei Advocate SATURDAY, APRIL 6, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 8780, 6 April 1907, Page 2

Rangitikei Advocate SATURDAY, APRIL 6, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

THE Hew Zealand Times is still talking about rural misconceptions in relation to the Laud Bill, taking as its text a letter received from Mr R. B. McKenzie, of Carnarvon. Vi T c quote a rather long extract from the article in order to fairly represent the line of argument, such as it is, taken by the Times. “The crux of the matter, ’ ’ says that journal, ‘‘ is this ; That our correspondent complained that existing mortgages to the amount of £00,000,000 were imperilled. Wc pointed out before that Mr McNab’s amendment to Clause 15 expressly freed these very mortgages from the operation of the Bill. Let ns quote the amendment again: ‘Provided always that where a mort- ’ gage of rural land is dated prior to the commencement of this Act, and' the mortgag o has become the purchaser of the mortgaged laud or any part thereof at a" sale made under tiro direction of the Registrar of the Supreme Court, the instrument of conveyance may bo absolutely registered if having subscribed thereto or endorsed thereon a statutory declaration by such purchaser that, to the best of his information, knowledge, and belief, the mortgage .was executed prior to the commencement of this Act. ’ The difficulty of arguing with the people who object to tho

.Din m mcir persistent suustnutiou of baseless prophecy for argument, tlicir determination to say that this or that ‘will bo’ tlie case without supporting their prediction with a jot or tittle of reason beyond their bare assertion that they '.kiiov; it will be so. When, therefore, it is i r urged that the mortgagee of land already mortgaged ‘will not renew except at his own terms’ wo can only repeat that the mortgages under discussion arc not touched by the Bill, and that, therefore, tfic Bill supplies no'regson that does not already exist

why a mortgagee should his policy in dealing with the mortgagor seeking a renewal.”

PASSING by the abuse of the opponents of the iSill, which is generally hold to indicate a weak ease, it does not appear that the Times gives any answer to the problem. As was pointed out by Mr E. Newman in a letter winch was published in our , columns on "Wednesday last, the purport of the amendment quoted is that the holder of a mortgage dated prior to tho passing of the Act will have the right of foreclosure even after the Act has passed. The Act was originally drawn up so carelessly that such an amendment became necessary in order to prevent the gross injustice which would have arisen had a man who had lent money with the understanding that he had the right of foreclosing as a security, been suddenly deprived of that right. If the Bill were to pass the position would be entirely altered. Any man who wished to renew a mortgage or to apply for a new one would find that the louder would not have unlimited right of foreclosure; in fact, the lender who held £15,000 worth of laud could only foreclose on condition that lie disposed of his new property within two years. Tho Farmers’ Union maintains that this restriction will tend to make land a worse security oil which to loud money, hud therefore will raise the rate of interest. The Times endeavours to produce tho impression that the Bill will make uo difference in the relations of borrower and lender. If this view wore correct the right of foreclosure would still remain as at present, and the restrictive clause of the Bill preventing anyone becoming the owner of laud worth more than £15,000 would be a dead letter. The writer in the Times is perfectly aware of this fact, but disiugeuiously prefers, like the cuttle fish, to cloud tho battle Hold by ejecting a flood of inky fluid, under shelter of which he hopes to escape his enemies.