MR J. D. ORMOND, M.H.R., AND INCREASED POPULATION.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 478, 7 June 1890, Page 5

MR J. D. ORMOND, M.H.R., AND INCREASED POPULATION.

We notice that the Napier Chamber of Commerce has followed the example of the Auckland Chamber, and has discussed the question of the non • progression of the colony and the necessity that exists for introducing a large population. The first resolution carried by the Napier Chamber was the counterpart of the main resolution moved and carried by the Auckland Chamber. The Auckland resolution ran as follows “ That in the opinion of this Chamber an increase of the population of New Zealand is essential for the progress of the colony and the prosperity of its existing inhabitants.” The first resolution passed by the Napier Chamber was, “ That in the opinion of this Chamber an increase of the population of New Zealand is essential to the progress of the colony.” **v As may naturally be supposed, although the main resolutions were identical, yet there was a marked difference in the discussion which took place upon them, and the methods suggested to carry out the common object were also widely different. The Auckland Chamber strongly urged the advisability and necessity of the Govern- ( ment taking over some of the large estates in possession of the big because there is now very little good accessible land available for settlement. Hawke’s Bay being jm7- excellence , the country of big estates and land monopoly, the Chamber of Commerce there hit on a most charming and convenient alternative, which consisted wholly and entirely in suggesting that their black brotherg should, for the good of the noble cause of true settlement, shed the last drop of their blood.

Mr J. D. Ormond, was fche grand old political warhorse who on this occasion came to guide the Napier Chamber, by framing the resolution.?, that were carried unanimously. These resolutions are so unique and so quaint in their self-condemnin/'" ' ilica-

tion, that laughter w'

report; of thL J. D. Ormond, more population is essential progress. So do we, and so say ali of us ; bub whether we are in accord with regard to the sorb of population required by the couutry is another thing altogether. We have nob altogether forgotten Mr Ormond’s onslaught on the late Government for “stopping,” as he termed it, “all settlement but pauper settlement.” The occupation of tho land in small blocks, by energetic and industrious families, is “pauper settlement” according to Mr J. D. of countless acres cattle have nope in his resolutiorPtte capitalist farmers, and says, “concessions to class of would-be immigrun^^^^H^^^Gt However, let us now resolution, providing the these newcomers. It runs as follows : “ With the view of providing land for settlement in the Morth Island, the Government shall endeavour to acquire from the native owners as much as possible of the large estate held by them, estimated at 12,000,000 acres, most of it lying waste and unproductive.”

How the old war-horse’s mouth must have watered when he contemplated all this fine land in the hands of those useless Maoris, “ most of it lying waste and unproductive.” Of course, that was the true solution to the problem of increasing our population. Let us rob our dark brothers of the remainder of their land, but we must stick to what we have got. In olden days acquiring Maori land was an easy matter, nothing indeed simpler in Hawke’s Bay. Give a native owner a free run of the store and groggery, and if the astute Caucasian who ran the store and groggery was not able in a very short period to bring that aboriginal into debt,[no matter what the value of his land, well, he was not the proper man for the position. We notice a property changed hands the other day in Hawke’s Bay at a place several miles distantfrom Napier, which tealised£23 an acre. Does Mr J. D. Ormond, M.H.R., recommend the Government to deal with the Maoris on this basis ? If not, why not ? Does Mr Ormond imagine that the guileless aboriginal is not equally alive now to the speculative value of his land as is the mildfaced and innocent pakeha? If they could be dealt with now as formerly, by giving them in exchange for valuable land a few blankets, a bottle or two of rum and some flour and sugar, all would bo lovely, and our course clear. But we hope and believe that those days have gone by never to return, and the Government have no more right to take the native land, except at its fair value, than they have to take Mr Ormond’s land.

The argument that the Maoris in the North Island, the remnant of a gallant race, are occupying twelve million acres, “ mostly waste and unproductive,” comes with very bad grace from one of the 1,600 large landowners who hold between them eighteen million acres of the best land of the colony. It is true that their estates are not unproductive, but that they are nearly all “ waste,” that is, still in their natural state, is also only too true. And in this respect the taunt applies equally as well to Mr Ormond and his fortunate 1,600 co-landowners as it does to the Maoris.

It is curious how apt we all are to sacrifice our brother to save our own skins. It will be remembered that some time ago a public meeting was called by the Mayor of Auckland to condemn the property tax. One leading Auckland citizen at that meeting pointed out that the sum so lost to the revenue could easily be recouped by putting a tax on all Maori lands. The proposal was received with applause. This suggestion was really about as brilliant and as unfair as Mr Ormond’s proposal to wheedle them out of their land, which is pretty nearly the sum and substance of his proposal. No, Mr Ormond ; you are an old and a cle%'er politician, and the object you and your Chamber of Commerce are so anxious to attain can be achieved, as you will no doubt at once with your long experience see, nob by purchasing your and the othe" rHawke’s Bay estates at a fabulous price per acre, and not by purchasing the Maori lands at the value they may choose to puton them, bubby quietly assessingall lands, both European and native, at their full unimproved value, and clapping on a moderate tax of, let us say, one per cent, upon them.

This tax would be found to be no greater upon the “waste and unproductive land ” of the Maoris than it would be upon you and your fellow-landowners—“waste” bub productive land which you hold still in a state of nature. But the effect of such a tax would be this : lb would cause you and your friends to utilise your land to its full taxable value, and if you could nob do this, you would find it convenient to part with it, no doubt to those who could and would use it. But alas! by that time the lands would have absolutely lost their speculative value, and you would nob receive from the purchaser more than its real

value for occupation and working. This no doubb is a painful matter to contemplate, bub if it were done, population would flock to us, and the present New Zealand wilderness would be made fcd blossom like the rose.

There is no necessity whatever for borrowing more millions to purchase either from the present European landowners cP from the natives. A simpletax on the unim* proved value of all land will very soon pub the matter straight in both cases. Auckland “Star.’^