A JUNK OF TRUTH.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 59, 31 May 1907, Page 2

A JUNK OF TRUTH.

Whatever effect for good or ill the Farmers* Union has on the country, there, is no doubt that the President, Mr J. ft. \Vilsou, stumbled on a big truth in his opening address to the Conference boinuf , held at Levin. He spoke of the action of big newspapers in favoring the Land Bill. and. of course, being in favor of the clauses which will force the big landholders to surrender their surplus land [under the Land Bill. But although' land in the cities is enormously dearer in proportion Hum land in the country, there is not the faintest suggestion from the dreamers of the Bill to cut down the city holdings of any man to a capital value of £50,000. And yet, if it is fair to reduce the holding of John Smith, sheepfarmer. to a maximum of £."50,000, it is quite as fair to reduce the townholding of William Jones, merchant, to the same maximum. William Jones doesn't think so, of course, but he and his class quite naturally feel themselves competent to limit the country person's property. indeed, it seems to be the town person's speciality to have a greater knowledge of what the farmer should not have 'than the farmer himself has. On the other hand, although the farmer is able to influence every town and is, in fact, the mainstay of all towns, neither the Farmers' Union nor any other body of agricultural or pastoral people sought to limit the income or aggregation of real estate of town-dwellers. The farmer might with perfect justice interfere with the merchant just as the merchant seeks to interfere with the farmer. In all the schemes for the nationalisation or partial nationalisation of the land, the Government lias uot yet decided on buying out every available town section, with the. object of making town leaseholders where freeholders now exist. Only a few weeks ago one man occupied the freehold of a block of land in one of the cities at the price of £450 per foot frontage. Of course such a man, as things go, had a perfect right to acquire all the town lauds he could get, and to such a man. the idea of limiting his holding to as much as would represent a capital value of £50.000 would be absurd from his point of view. There are blocks of laud in the cities on which single buildings are built worth £BO,OOO. None of the owuers are likely to ge notice to quit the excess over £50.000 within ten years, although plenty of such owners are willing enough that the Land Bill shall pass, but if the Government is going to try the curb bit on the pasturalist and agriculturalist and ride the merchant on the snalile, it appears to be regretting its non-interference with the town-dweller a little. The Arbitration Court has lately established a precedent by ordering a certain business to pay its employees whole week's wage whether the whole wccl< is worked or not. The scope of Government interference is so wide that few callings indeed are exempt. Clearly fhe duty of the Government is to include in L :nd Bill some clauses limiting the amount of ; ,v >perly, which one may hold in a town well as the country. Jt may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.