Rangitikei Advocate. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8830, 5 June 1907, Page 2

Rangitikei Advocate. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1907. SECOND EDITION. EDITORIAL NOTES

WE offer our sympathy to the New Zealand Times for the very inconsiderate treatment it has received at the hands of Mr McNab. A shorttime ago the Minister for Lands quoted statistics showing that the number of estates ot over £15,000 in value had largely increased in the last four years. Wc pointed out at the time that these figures included town as well as country properties, and therefore had no hearing whatever on the question as to whether aggregation of estates was going on. The Times, however, with more ignorance than discretion, used Mr McNab’s statements as evidence that aggregation was. increasing, aud

painted the wickedness of the large landholder in glowing colours, even quoting the classic ease of Naboth’s vineyard as a type of what is going on to-day. Unfortunately, Mr McNah, in an interview with a reporter for the Post, utterly disclaimed any intention of trying to prove that large estates were increasing in number. We quote from the report of the interview as follows: —“Mr McNab said ho had quoted the return only to show iiow many were holding land over the £30,000 limit, both town and country. Ho was not dealing generally with the question of aggregation at the time, though he had referred to the case of one man, who owns close on a quarter of a million worth of laud, and is piling up acre on acre from day to day. The figures published yverc handed to the press for publication without comment, aud the papers had arranged aud discussed them under the heading of aggregation of estates. The figures were not quoted to show that estates were increasing in area, but to show that estates of great value were accumulating in the country.” In future Mr McNab will peri laps be careful to make his meaning a little more plain in order to save the Times from blundering so badly in to defend the Bill at any cost.

AFTER the above exposure of the readiness of the Times to seise any weapon to attack the opponents of the Land Bill, it is hardly necessary to follow in detail its attempt to discredit the President of the Farmers’ Union and “his unblushing coterie. ’ ’ Abuse of opponents is generally regarded as the sign of a weak cause, and the efforts of the Times to discredit Mr J. G. Wilson in the eyes of the Wellington section of the Farmers’ Union has merely resulted in his being re-elected presir dent by a unanimous vote. The picture drawn of the Farmers’ Union by the gentleman who occupies the editorial chair for the Times can only cause a smile among those who know the real state of affairs. ‘‘ A disingenuous attempt, ’ ’ says that writer, “is being made to load the farmer by the nose, to make him a counter in a game, which is very much to his own disadvantage. Never was there a more ridiculous jnisnomcr than to call by the name of'Farmers’ Union the league of a few; land monopolists who are anxious to prevent the enactment of any reasonable measure by .which they may find themselves obliged to part with some of their superfluity of. land to those who Ixavo too little or none at all.” Farmers are hardly likely to be drawn by sucli remarks ps these to throw jo their lot' with » , i > t ts, •"

party who refuse to permit the farmer to own the land he works, and who affect to believe that any increase in the value of the laud belongs not to the cultivator, but to the people at large.

\yE imagine that the London money market will ho able to survive the shock of being described by Mr Carruthors as the rottenest in the | world. Private borrowers who | have good security to offer generally | find that they can obtain accommodation at reasonable rates, while those who have no right to borrow at all often find it difficult to obtain loans even at exorbitant interest. It ■ is exactly the same with Stages. A country like Egypt, which wa=. bankrupt a few years ago,- hut has by dint oLccouomy and good management recovered its position in a marvellous manner, is a welcome borrower in the London maikot, but Australia and Mow Zealand are viewed with suspicion from their too frequent demands for loans. Mr -Carruthers’ lament that there is no patriotism in London finance is a childish attempt to arouse ill-feeling, but may well be mot by the retort that it is owing to their patriotism that Loudon financiers are unwilling to allow Australia to continue on her course of reckless borrowing.