The Daily News MONDAY, MARCH 25. DR. FINDLAY AND THE LAND PROPOSALS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 59, 25 March 1907, Page 2

The Daily News MONDAY, MARCH 25. DR. FINDLAY AND THE LAND PROPOSALS.

A decree of importance at ladies itself to the speech of the Altorney-Ucncral at New Plymouth on Thursday evening', be-

cause the speech represents the lirst broadside delivered by the newest addition to a Cabinet that is pretty well staking its existence oil the passing of the Land Hill. The Attorney-(General spoke, not as Dr. Findlny, lint as a .Minister of tlie Crown. And in speaking at New Plymouth, he was speaking not so ' much lo the people present but to the people of the whole colony. It is safe to say that no member of Ihc .Ministry could have handled the subject, from the (loveriiineiit's point of view, more ably, more trenchantly or more lucidly, it was a speech that one could expect from a gentleman of the scholarly attainments possessed by Or l-'indlay. It traversed the history of the operations of the land laws of the colony, and gave one a clearer insight into the present proposals than the explanations of any of the oilier champions of the (lovcrnnioni's liill have afforded.

Dr. l-'indlay was not far from the mark when he said in Ihe introductory part of his speech that the record of our land legislation anil land administration is ill a measure a record of mistakes, and that is, we think, a substantial reason why we should exercise extreme caution before undertaking fresh laud legislation, and. particularly, that proposed by .Messrs M'Nah and Co. It is tact that most ol the theories .that plan to make New Zealand a new Arcadia emanate from persons who are only interested in the land in a speculative or merely political sense. Any Trades Council or Federation, or impractical Minister of the Crown, or the village oracle, can tell the farmer exactly what is good for the farmer, and the advice is frequently seltish and impractical ill character. The man on the laud, especially the back-blocker, has a isulliciently hard enough battle as it is, by high prices, mortgages, noxious weeds, and roadlessness, apart from the remote possibility of getting his tenure altered, his progress checked, and his position made uncertain by men who are distinctly not laud experts, who know little about tlie possibilities of land, the potential value of products of land, or the capacity of the soil in any way.

It is all very well for a lawyer to theorise, and persuade himself that what he is saying is for the benefit of the nations yet unborn, it is all very well for him, a town enthusiast, and the Hon. All* Fowlds, another town enthusiast, both of whom are in snug positions, to prose about the sin of alienation of land by the Government, but it is distinctly not well for the class of 1 men who till the soil, and from whose . elforts make possible the good livings enjoyed by the lawyer or draper. TJie man 011 the soil builds up an industry mi the land in exactly the same way as the city draper builds up his business. To tell either the draper or the farmer that ! lie shall not reap the full effect of his industry, and that he shall be in constant suspense as to tile tenure of his business is, to our mind, wrong. The draper with a little rented shop isn't going to work so hard or put in an energetic time improving his premises if he can never acquire the freehold of his shop or a larger one. Any person in the wide world tells a lie if he allirms that he does not want the freehold of the land he occupies, or wants .some, properly that he can call his very own. livery man is proud of possession.

A country of small freeholders is a free country. A country of large landowners is a bond country. A country ol leasehold landowners is never a snecpsisjul country, jf this country is to be guided in its operations by the'example, by the successes and failures of other countries, we can turn to France, which is one if the richest per head of population of the countries of the world. The land policy is the reason. France's land system is almost entirely small freehold, like Denmark's— another successful and wealthy country. When asked to raise a loan for immediate use. the small freeholders of France pour in their few tranes a head, and subscribe money in . quicker time than the rural people of !any other country can possibly do. The | Land iljJI, iu its essentials, makes dej pendente on the (Jovernment absolute, ! f( 'ar of what the f-'overuuicnt may do next a nightmare.; if disturbs the security oi tenure, handicaps the man who wants to get on, and seeks to reduce all settlers to the one level.

Tin: limitation of area and the value of holdings with the enforcement of sale on holders o! over fifty thousand pounds worth of land, no one objects to. We want no monopolists in Xew Zealand at least we want fewer than we have. The big estates have 110 doubt served their purpose in the past, but that purpose, with the advance of settlement, does not now exist. The big estates must go, but before they do so the Government should seek !o bring into profit and settlement some, of the millions of acres of Crown and native lands that arc available, or should be made available. Dr. Findlav made out a good case ior the endowment principle. "Was jt not time/* he said, "when they should take the precaution to set aside

. . reserve* ajid endowments, which in years to come would help our old age. pensioners, our hospitals, charitable aid boards, and our educational system Most of the lands proposed by the trainers of the Land liifl to be set aside as endowment are second class and third clasn in quality. and, according to the Minister's speech, on the Financial Statement last session, would comprise nearly 10,824,000 acres, with n present lejital of £12J,000, and a prospective rental of £184,000. Education, charitable aid, and oh I age pensions now cost us approximately £1,200,001) a year, and are annually increasing in cost. So that the £'184,000 annual prospective rents dei from national endowments (and which if leased under the system proposed, viz., a renewable lease of 00 years, will not increase in value, so far as the {State is concerned, during those 00 years), would he hut a very small drop in the bucket.

Ihe State, asserted Dr. Fimllav, is a ; ™?ator of values, and is entitled to have lis interest in the increment, protected—a belief shaved by most of his colleagues <md the disciple of Henry it Is rather singular that'the assertion is made almost invariably iu respect of uual lands, not in connection with ur« e ban property, ft is rather singular, ioo, as we have before pointed out, that the State claims an interest iu the increment of jural lands, out says nothing or proposes to do nothing about protecting J its interest iu the increment of town j properly. To our mind, the State could with more justification claim an inter- [ est in the increment of urban than iu rural property. .Values iu towns are directly created by increase of population, not only of the towns themselves, but of the country generally, and the more 1 prosperous the rural settlers, the greater the benelit to town concerns and urban property. Without population, as a matter of fact, .town proper!v would have very little value. Jiijt ijj regard to the rural lands, the cause of Their values is entirely different. II lira 1 land value is created to a very large extent by the markets of the Old Country, and if there is to be a division of Hie/increment, who is more entitled to it—the Government or the consumers of the Old Country Y Jloading plays a big part in the values of land, but it is the settlers flie'iiM-lves mho have to pay the rates for tlie maintenance of Hie roads. 'The

Ilovei'iniH'iil, it U Inn*, conii-ibntes subsidy. Imt the subsidy comes out' of the consolidated revenue, and the soil leva have to contribute picl.iy stiil'ly in Custom duties and general taxes to (he consoli'latfil revenue. Railways. of course, give an enhanced value to adjacent lauds, but railways are necessary for national development, ale just as much ;i necessity for (lie town dwellers as the country people, -md are therefore a joint obligation. If there is to be any <]»roleelioii"' of (lie State's interest 'in the hind, the Covernmenf sliould treat urban and rural interests alike, and take p. lit- of the increment of town propertie*. "Were that done, iliere "would be a loud howl Jroni the towns.

'('"'-(inn for t)ie Fo , llc m , )!k , w!,(l ai'« frenninelvdesirous ol cm tin- Jun.l, is -do llie.se orntovieal theorists know what is good for us better than we know ourselves? Are tin; people oil (lie Innd he a hlmttlwock to he knoeked )«,ekwards mill forwards—lmt mostly Inwards— hy tile successive theorists of successive Governments? Will tlie man who owns his own land, or who has .a reasonable elianee of acquiring i(. he a Mirr hcttlrr limn ilie man who can wxvy liopo to lun'onic his own landlord? Shall tlu> tenure of the land be aHorvd, and the settler systematically

harassed at the. instigat ion of countless societies and individuals) having nothing Lo do with the land except io talk about if;'' We know what the settler ', answer is, and it would not be lavoiable to Dr. Findlay or anv of his co-advocates of the Land liill, which lias neither head, middle nor tail.