The Taihapc Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1916. LAND FOR RETURNED SOLDIERS.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume 8, Issue 133, 8 June 1916, Page 4

The Taihapc Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE

THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1916. LAND FOR RETURNED SOLDIERS.

(With which is incorporated The Tai bape Post and Waimarino News.)

It might be to our supreme advantage as the people of ,a nation that is no unimportant part of a great Empire, if we made a thorough examination of ourselves itrtecaa'lly, with a view to ascertaining if we still possess those great attributes, the evidences of scoul, that place us at the head of the animal kingdom as rational and considerate beings, and which are essential to higher and still higher attainments in the realms of progressive civilisation, it is freely stated by some that certain aboriginal peoples have no sense of gratitude, and it may probably have troubled a few to ascertain definitely whether the nonexistence of such a noble quality has relationship to progress or retrogression, whether it is associated more with an exalted civilisation, or whether it is a mark of the simpler life of those who are on the lower rung of the ladder of human life. Our thoughts have been drawn to the question on reading in. the. newspapers about the treatment that is being meted out to our soldiers. While they are fighting, giving their lives to preserve our land from falling into the hands of our enemies, let us examine our act s to ascertain how we are showing cur appreciation, or gratitude, for the sacrifice they are making. Only a short time back we read that a returned soldier had put in an application for a section of land that had been advertised as open for selection. This soldier was told that his application was inadmissible as he had not then received his formal discharge from the military authorities. It seems to us this is a. most iniquitous, farreaching precedent or decision. Are we to understand by it that no soldier can obtain a piece of land on which to live till he has returned to this country when war is over, and has received bis formal discharge from the military authorities here If that is so, then it is so transparently unjust that Parliament should lose no time in bringing about rectification, more in accord with the feelings of a grateful people, and a realisation of that debt of gratitude which nothing we can do will ever repay. Great B'ritain has its emissaries at work planning, acquiring and arranging for her men when they return, what is New

Zealand tf.oing in tMs respect for her own? It seems that the available land svere is being disposed of as rapMHy as possible while these men are away and call have no participation therein. When they return it will be to find that what was left of New Zealand when they went away has been partitioned among a few people in huge areas, and if they desire only I enough to live on they have to deal with a system of land-sharkism that the Government has hurriedly built up in their absence. The land laws of the present Government were only admissable in a country with unlimited areas of land that would be difficult to settle. Here we have a land himgqr unprecendgnteld in ctir history, and yet the acquisition of land in large areas from the Government proceeds at an astounding rate, and /aggregation goes on merrily everywhere. What hope is there for the men who are coming back to us. their work done in the country’s battlefields? We need only refer to the scandalous disclosure at Rotorua, of ,what the Government land laws per'mit and encourage. There we find that three or four men have been given so much land that almost as soon as it comes into their possession they want thirty or forty thousand pounds profit before they will pass it on to the real, the bona fide settler. It is admitted that the land is worth what i s asked for it. but that fact discloses the cardinal culpability of the Government who pitchforked it at these men. Why did the Government throw away this thirty or forty thousand pounds worth of land? Was it the act of sane, or honest administrators cf the public estate? The Government’s most ardent friends cannot for shame’s sake defend such reckless disposal of that which is so urgently needed for settling men with a view to the needed perpetuation of British blood. We cannot see any yood reason fcr robbing the soldier who has not been formally discharged from military duty of his rights of citizenship. Our gallant lads are not out of New Zealand seeking their own interests; let us realise that they have been sent to fieht for New Zealand’s security from the spoiler who is anxious to invade. Then why should he 1 be deprived of the inalienable right > be held before he left? It is an iniustice that the sense of a grateful "”0016 should never have been tarn- : i'ffied or insulted with. We contend that not only should every returned soldier, discharged or undischarged, but every man who is still at the; front, should possess the full right to acquire a limited iarea of land on which to settle when! he returns. While there is land for settlement (the father, mother or an officer of the government, if requested, should ‘have the right to put in an application. Otherwise it is apparent our men -will have no choice but pay the landshark created by the Government his extortions or go without. Are we entirely want-, ing in that attribute eff gratitude that is said to characerise a people, who, in their communial laws, shame us with the consideration they extend to' each other?