Rangitikei Advocate. FUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8829, 4 June 1907, Page 2

Rangitikei Advocate. FUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

THE bakers in Marton and Wanganui districts seein determined to mate a good harvest from the recent rise in flour. In Marton bread has long been dearer than in any of the large centres or in many other, towns of similar size but the present increase to 4d for the 21b. loaf and 4>£d booked seems quite unjustified by the condition of the flour market. In other towns the price of the 41b. loaf either as at Oamaru remains at 6d or after much debate has been raised to 7d; but Wanganu and Marton are to be charged 8d or 9d for a similar loaf. The Minister for Labour proposes to set up a Board to investigate cases in which excessive prices are charged for commodities, and no doubt the Board will speedily visit Marton. We are not aware whether the Board will have the power of inflicting capital punishment, or whether it will be restricted to imposing a term of imprisonment only, but we should much regret even the temporary loss of valued members of the community. Seriously, though we have always opposed unnecessary Government interference with private business, a point may be reached where in the public interest it be comes absolutely necessary, and the action of the Wanganui and Marton bakers has done more to bring State bread shops into the region of practical politics than all the speeches of socialist orators.

THE President of the Farmers' Union, in his speech at Levin, drew attention to the anomaly which would exist if the Land Bill were passed, that outside & borough no one might acquire land valued at more than £15,000, while in town a single man could own just as much as he pleased. The New Zealand Times was particularly annoyed because Mr Wilson pointed out that that journal held property in Wellington valued at more than £15,000, which was the limit for "country lands. The statement drew from the Times the remark that laud in towns and in the country was held under totally different,.conditions, and tliai "arguments applicable to land used for raising sheep or cattle could notjjejjsafely applied to town 1 properties, It, is surely, a- carious

fact that a borough boundary [which can be varied at will should possess such a magical powof. Outside the j sacred enclosure bounded by an? Arbitrary line the man who owns [a valuable property is to be execrated as an enemy of the people and compelled to disgorge, whereas as soon} as the line is passed it becomes no crime, but a sign of energy and enterprise to" Owii as much land as possible-. Such is the theory which appeals to the promoters of the Land Bill, who are blind to inequalities of treatment of this description, though as soon as the region of gas lamps and pavements is left behind their eyes open wide to the injustice of permitting aj farmer, however capable, to ownj more than a limited area of land. ; The feeling against large estates being retained in the, hands of a single owner is due to a variety of causes, the most effective of which is the jealousy felt by the poorer class for those who are better off than themselves. This sentiment is,' however, re-enforced by a more ; worthy reason, namely, the con- | viction that tho men who own | very large estates do not always i make tho best use of them. Some I landowners, it is said, prefer to expend little capital in improvements land to make &ii income by methods ; which show little advance on those i practised by Abraham or Lot, ! although their estates, if intensely cultivated, would in many cases produce a far greater- return and would provido land and homes for many hard working 'settlers. It is the idea that men of this kind still exist, though they are really far less numerous than is commonly supposed, that gives the only real ■foundation for the cry to limit estates, But it is equally truo that in the towns many owners fail to use their land for the best advantage of the whole population. They draw high rents from houses which are unfit for habitation, and refuse to sell their laud, hoping that by holding it they will ultimately obtain a bettor price. They are, in fact, animated by ex actly the same motives as inspire the least estimable of the country landowners. The New Zealand Times sees auite clearly that, in spite of the undoubted evil 3 existing in towns, to attempt any form of restriction of value would unduly handicap enter- ' prise, but fails to see that a limitation which would interfere with individuals inside the borough boundary would have exactly the same effect when imposed on countrj settlers