The Daily News. FRIDAY, JULY 15. AGAIN THE LAND.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 82, 15 July 1910, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, JULY 15. AGAIN THE LAND.

Theoretically, the ideas of the AttorneyGeneral are sound enough, and as be is the member of the .Ministry who utterance to moot ideas, his conclusions on any subject must necessarily be acj cepted as convincing .and conclusive. Dr. Findlay is always interesting, and on tiie land question he is enlightening, particularly in regard to .his assercion that "territory, not tenure,'' wou.d be the immediate probkm. The Minister asserted that at the present rate of settlement, in less than six years there would be no Crown lands left for distribution, and that there would be only two million acres of native land to cut up. There is something gratifying in this statement, but one has some right to query the facts. It is reasonable to assume that in the next six years the populatiou of (New. Zealand will not increase at a greater ratio than it has been doing in the past six years. The population, in fact, has not been very largely augmented in that period. There has been an inflow and an outflow, but no greatly marked increase. There is no indication that the population of towns is decreasing. The reverse is the fact. One must therefore'conclude that real settlement will not materially increase, but that the j majority of present settlers will be •*- 1 aisled to increase their holdings. Real settlement cannot be augmented without enormous additions of population, and if eight million acres of Maori lands are to be served out in the next few years and the whole of the remainder of unoccupied Crown land settled, it is impossible that the prosperity of the country can be materially affected. The problem facing any Government in regard to the settlement of unused areas is not the mere leasing of the land to persons, but the leasing of as many small areas of land to as many people as possible. There are not in New Zealand at the present moment sufficient peopie to properly partition the-land amongst in small, workable areas. The use of , land merely as a speculative asset is the most deplorable feature of all transactions, and it is one of the chief features in this country. The fact that the farmer of New Zealand produces almost the entire wealth on which the country subsists is the chief reason why there > should be more farmers. The increase of areas to persons already holding areas will not increase the wealth of the country to the extent that it would be increased if the country was closely farmed in small areas. The productiveness of the land held by comparatively few; people is a source of great wonder, but so much land is held that does not produce one tithe of its capacity that concentration on this point is necessary. It is impossible that the best results can be obtained from the settlement of the whole country even if this is effected in six years, should the number of holders of land not be enormously increased. The growth of towns with no corresponding growth of settlement in the country is a menace to prosperity. No one in this country will contradict us when we say that' if six times the number of settlers had been settled on the land, the possibilities of national progress < would have been enhanced. Prosperity need not necessarily come from the acquisition of land. Prosperity comes with the proper use of it. It cannot be proved that it is in the least satisfactory to ' settle two million acres of land with 2582 settlers, for the land so leased is practically gone out of the market and cannot be more closely settled except at the will of the lessees. In fact, the policy of land settlement as disclosed by the condition of settlement of last year is based on the apparent supposition that New Zealand is to be partitioned among one million people, that it is to remain a country of large leaseholders, and that as the policy develops it will be increasingly difficult to give anybody a handful of country. The Land Department obviously believes the prosperity of the whole country is disclosed in the amounts received in revenue by the State 'from leased lands. Thus it is shown that an area of the National Endowment aggregating 1,024,537 acres has

been served out among 615 settlers. This is considered to be satisfactory, not because the smallest possible number of settlers have been accommodated, but because the revenue totalled £7S,4OS. The student of the land question is entitled to ask whether the return in sheep, butter, pigs, cattle, crops, or anything else should be the estimate of the value of this settlement or merely what the holders paid to the State for the use of it. The State is not really concerned in getting rid of the land as fast as possible to the smallest number of people. It has no right to boast of its huge transactions when it is apparent that these transactions have benefited only a few folk. Where the Crown holds lands that have not been purchased from private owners, its obvious duty is to dispose of it without favor and in the smallest lots consistent with fairness to selectors. If the settlement of land increases in the "satisfactory" manner mentioned, New Zealand in a few years will contain a limited number of very large landholders, no closer settlement will be possible, and the rest of the people will be the dependents of the favored few who have been lucky enough to obtain areas. Tf the placing of 015 selectors on a million odd acres of land is satisfactory settlement, we wonder what satisfactory settlement will be taking place, say, in fifty years' time.