The Daily News. TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1904. THE LAND QUESTION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 101, 3 May 1904, Page 2

The Daily News. TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1904. THE LAND QUESTION.

Tim aims of the Farmers' Union as regards the land question wero very fully explained by the President, Mr J, 0. Wilson, in his recent speech at Aslrburton. There had, he said, been a good deal of misconception regarding the views of the Fanners' Union upon the land question. What the Union wanted was that the terms of the Land for Settlement Act should be strictly carried out as far as the three tenures were concerned, and that all holders of land upon perpetual lease should be allowed to purchase the freehold of their holdings at uny time after the necessary improvements had been made. The Union was just as anxious for close settlement as the land reformers were, ami was just as anxious that the people should remain in the country instead of crowding into the towns. The question was not a party one, and he did not think anybody could claim it was. The Farmers' Union had no desire whatever to do away with tile leasehold, for they realised that certain tenants, through lack of opportunity, were unable to acquire the freehold of their land—a remark that was greeted with applause. The question was a colonial one, and affected Hie whole of New Zealand. Mr Wilson contended (hut the Government, by Lund Boards and delegation, had created a feeling of insecurity among the Crown tenants, for very often the Land Boards acted unjustly, and as 'often delegated their powers to the rangers. Further, the difficulty of raising money on the Crown lands was a source of trouble to tho Crown tenant, who instead of paying 4 or 5 per cent., had to pay 8, 9, or 10. 11« did not think tho ngitution would have been started if it had not been for the Fair Rent Bill. The Valuation Court, as at present constituted,was, he said, a travesty of justice in New Zealand. The Union had tried to get the court constituted on the basis of the Arbitration Court, but were defeated in the Uous'e by one vote. Mr Wilson then proceeded to quote a number of cases where Crown tenants had been harassed and worried by various Land Boards and land officers. Continuing, he said that the State would be a large gainer if the freehold of Crown lands was granted to tenants, and the time would come when, in order to replenish the colonial coffers, the freehold would be sold. The money so obtained could be employed in the purchase of further land. With proper precautions there was no likelihood of any large aggregations of estates taking place. Some land could only be worked profitably when held in large areas, and the Government had realised that by adding together sections which had been proved by experience to be too small. The Union considered that Crown tenants should be allowed to purchase the freeholds at a price determined by th v value of the land when it was leased. U was said that the State had improved the value of the land in the meantime, but that was -a fallacy. The one thing that, the State and not the community had done in the way of improving the value of the land was the constniction of railways. The produce of the colony was mostly purchased in London, and the unearned increment of the land raising that produce therefore lielonged to the London purchaser. In conclusion Mr Wilson stated that, the Union desired to give the settler such a tenure of his land as would enable him to take the last penny out of his land. The Union desired that the Laud for Settlement Act should he carried out. ami for that reason he thought it would lie wise for the Government to sell the freehold to tenants, and with the purchase mone> buy further estates for cutting up. The Union hud the same aims as the land reformers—to see the settlers happy, contented and prosperous, but they adopted different methods.