THE LAND BILL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVIII, Issue 81918, 13 February 1907, Page 4

THE LAND BILL.

FARMERS' UNION PLATFORM. .■' (Conolusion.) men any check is serious, but imagine what it would mean to them if interest were suddenly to rise. The firm, auctioneer, or storekeeper in 'whose debt he was would be- ' Th& baaJfr in the readjustment of their advances, would require to call in a portion, and the firms by whom the money was advauc. . to the farmers would require to realise. The storekeeper who had given credit would not be likely to be paid at all, and he again would not be able to meet his engagements, and the effect would be felt in towns sooner than anywhere. Thus it will be seen that t)je commercial man who said there would be a "grave upheaval" was right in his conclusions. There are thousands of struggling men who "will win through" if left alone, who would lose all they had, and have to begin the world again were the Bill as we have it before us to pan.o The Premier has said that not a line of the Bill is against tho Freehold. Surely it is safe to say the Freehold is being attacked if it is made unsafe for these men to hold. Our Premier said that a graduated tax put on the land would throw "large areas upon the markets and would also cause a very considerable dislocation of the land market from end to end of the colony." That is certainly what would happen if the Land Bill passes with the provision relating to mortgagees as it stands. To some, all this "upheaval" might be a matter of congratulation, and we are truly glad to see the Ministry does not desire "to dislocate the land market from end to end of the colony;" but we claim to have shown that outside the £50,000 men altogether the land market will be "dislocated." Values will fall, to what no one can say. Here are the thoughts of a man writing to a paper which is in favour of the Bill:—"It seems to me this is worthy the careful attention of farmers. If the land to be cut up is sold at current rates it will benefit nobody; if it is sold at, say, 25 per cent, less, it means that all the land in the colony will depreciate simultaneously. Farms are continually changing hands in the colony, and if every farmer whoso land is today worth £l2 an acre realises that if the Bill "passes it will fall to £9 and not recover its value for some years, will noC the Bill damage more than it assists? Could not the promoters of the Bill make some reasonable forecast as to this matter?" On the London Stock Exchange, or on Wall Street, when financiers and capitalists want to make money out of stock they "bear" the market and resort to all sorts of devices to depreciate the value of the shares. Wheri shares have touched bottom, they buy in and make a fortune. That would bo the effect of the Land Bill. The House would be "bearing", tho land values if it passed the Bill. But no one would gain by it; the poor man would have no credit, therefore he could not take advantage of the market. The capitalist, if ho cared to put down his cash, would be able to buy at his own figure. And why all this turmoil? Not because there was no land for sale in the colony. There is not 25 per cent. of the freehold properties in New Zealand which cannot be bought to-day. There are, according to the Premier, 1,600,000 acres of Crown land remaining for settlement. But the Year Book just published gives the Commissioner of Lands' reports, and from these we find the following: Crown Lands Available for Settlement. Auckland Province ... 834,169 Taranaki Province ... 84,774 Wellington Province ... 39,333 Marlborough Province 4,0,000 Kelson Province ... 19,575 Westland Province ... 101,952 Qtago Province ... 33,665 Southland Proyince ... 52,311 Frawke's Bay Province 25,117 1,230,896 Areas which are not yet open for selection:'— Auckland (note the Commissioner speaks of the land as suitable for settlement except in the case of Thames and Ohine--1 muri, and these we have not taken into account), 736,485; Taranaki, 131,550; Hawke's Bay, 122,880; Wellington, 67,000. The lands in the other provinces are given together in round numbers, but leaving the South Island out, there is, according to the reports of the Commissioner in the Year Book, an area of 2,288,811 acres still fit for settlement, together with all the available unsurveyed land in the South Island. The Premier announced that there were besides this 6,000,000 acres of native land fit for settlement, so that there is still an enormous area of unproductive land waiting for the settler and the axe. It is well known that the land still held by the natives is not ordinary land, but for the most part is of the best quality. ® For years past the natives have been roughest of tho land to the Government and keeping the best, which has been en-

hanced in value by the roada formed by the settlers (becoming responsible for loana),. and Government. It is, in fact, more capable of being cut up into smaller areas than the bulk of the land put upon the market by the Government in recent years. Mr McNab's figures show that under the optional system during the last three years 743,540 acres of land were taken up, and under the Lease-in-Perpetuity (Land for Settlement) 415,321 acres, making a total of 1,158,861 acres. At this rate, taking the average quality of the unoccupied native land into account, and worked in conjunction with tho Land for Settlement Act, we have more land lhan we can settle during the next ten years. Two officials on a holiday trip, whose opinion cannot be gainsaid, rode through a block of 80,000 acres of native land, the grass being up to their stirrups along the track, and they told the present writer that it would be worth in the settled districts £l2 or £ls an acre.

The Year Book gives the total area of Freehold land in the colony at 16,473,025 acres. The area held by the Crown and the natives is, therefore, equal to half the already disposed of Freehold land. We are told the Crown lands are nearly all gone. Surely it will be a matter for congratulation when they are all gone—if they are only settled on a proper tenure. And yet, when that is the case, there will yet remain this 6,000,000 acres of native land to find settlers for. Whilst that remains unproductive, the colony is to have its financial arrangements completely upset by a Bill, the principles of which have not been before the country except in regard to tho right of leaseholders to acquire the Freehold, and on this question the country answered in the affirmative. The country said this should be granted. Tho Bill deuies that right. A Commission to enquire into this question, costing £16,000, took evidence all over tho colony, and it was overwhelmingly in favour of leaseholders being given tho right to purchase their land. The Bill gives them the right to pay off 90 per cent, of the original value, but refuses to allow them to make the land their own. v By retaining the 10 per cent, it would seem that any conditions imposed by the Land Act under which the land is held, still nnnain, though in the words of the Bill: (4) "When payments equal to fifty per centum of such value U:\vc been made, the lessee shall for tho residue of the

Lorm of th'j lease have possession of tiie land freed from all covenants and conditions contained or implied in tho lease other than the covenant to pay rent." Anything specially mentioned m the lease is freed, but not otherwise. It is doubtful, therefore, whether each transfer must not have tho sanction of the Land Board—even if the land is devised by will. Mr Ramsay McDonald, who was lately out here touring the colony, and naturally associating with those who had similar views to himself, and who had discussed the effects of the Land Bill amongst his friends in the colony, gave in Melbourne the following opinion : —"lf New Zealand were going to carry on progressive legislation, the Freehold system must be knocked on tho head. ... In this connection Mr McNab's land policy comes in, with the elimination of the Freeholders." Here, at any rate, is one who looks upon the Bill as an attack upon, the Freehold; as a beginning towards tho desired end :>f "knocking the Freehold on the head"; as an instalment of what is hoped for. We would appeal to those who may do us the favour of reading this to look at the matter dispassionately, not as fi party question, but as one of fairness and justice, and to remember that this Bill specially exempts the town lands from its operations, and therefore it deals with country lands only, from which are eliminated all Crown grazing lands. It therefore deals only with— Freehold land ... 16,000,000 Maori land, unoccupied, say ... 6,000,000 Crown land, unoccupied, say ... 2,000,000 24,000,000 and the leasehold land which is not separated from the grazing runs in the return quoted. As town lands are not included, 'it goes without Baying" that the country settlers should have a strong voice on the matter, having already settled the land and being likely to assist in the settlement of the balance, as well as being mpre competent (as cultivators and users of the land) to deal with a question which is essentially their own