The Daily News. SATURDAY, AUGUST 6. A LEASEHOLD POLICY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 101, 6 August 1910, Page 4

The Daily News. SATURDAY, AUGUST 6. A LEASEHOLD POLICY.

Ihe man on the land receives an enormous amount of gratis advice as to how he should conduct himself by people who live on him. Every politician, no matter whether he is a fishmonger or a bookseller, has a land policy concealed about Mm. , He would greatly abject to a farmer suggesting that his bookshop or ibis fish emporium should ,be espied and overlooked by the State, but he is at liberty to earn immortality by framing policies for non-fishmongers and booksellers. Mr. Russell, M.P. for Avon, has laid down •. leasehold policy, the first I clause of ' 1 Uhiich suggests that there shall be lyflnterference with freehold rights by 'MI State! He might have added that the State should not now or at any time ibreak into citizens' houses and steal their furniture. No interference with freehold by the State is possible except by re-purcliase—gen-erally at excessive rates—for closer settlement. Mr. Russell's first clause provides for this. His second clause suggests that the Crown tenant shall not only pay the rent, but "also a fair profit to the "State." That is to - say, the pioneer should be penalised for his pioneering. The profit would be appraised at periodical intervals, and, presumably, would rise in proportion as. the country developed. The clause kindly mentions that the settler's own improvements would not be taxed, but it is clear that any appraisement would be made on the general work of all settlers in the vicinity, for there is no other way of appraisement. Settlers are the reason for all State improvements, and the Government that improved a country that was not populated would ibe ripe for mental examination. The clause mentions that the appraisement for the payment of State profit would 'be made "only on such increases of value as were beyond the influence of the tenant's labor and capital." The only question for Mr. Russell • to answer is, "Who is going to raise the value of a settler's holding except himself and his fellow settlers?" Mr. Rus- . sell's third clause is by way of protecting the man who desires 'transfer of a Crowm lease from the tenant. It provides that the land has been leased by the Government cheaply in the first "Instance shall not be sub-leased dearly in the second instance. It is impossible to reconcile the clause which talks of taxing raised values with this third clause. If,.the Sjtate says: "This land has increased in value, and we will therefore tax you, although you have not been responsible," why should not the taxed tenant, if he desires to sub-lease, get the benefit of the increased' value? Besides land transactions between man and man are, of course, joint agreements'. No man pays excessive prices with his mental eyes shut. No law can kill the human appetite for barter. Most men pay too much for land—but' that is their fault. The fourth clause of Mr! Russell's leasehold policy is equally delicious. It provides that the State shiill control residence on leased lands. The Government already tries to do this, and has the power of evicting lessees who do not oonform to residence conditions. But the clause also provides that within reasonable limits the State shall control the question of farming leased lands. If anything would make a farmer yell for the freehold, such a clause as that on the Statute-book would. Mr. Russell might have inserted a proviso that a policeman and an inspector • should be appointed by the State to reside on every leasehold. And there is no reason why there should not be an inspector appointed by the State to carefully watch everybody else besides farmers. The State is the settler. He is the State's all in ( all, but a later clause of Mr. Russell's remarkable contribution to the humorous literature of the time istates that whert a lessee quits his lease for a valuable consideration the profits he has made—irrespective of improvements —shall be divided (not necessarily equally) between himself and the State. That is to say, the State penalises the buyer of the lease for being, such a fool as to pay a >big price. And we draw attention ag«in to a former clause which mentions that the Government will carefully see that "goodwill charges" shall not make cheap land dear land for a

second lessee. In one clause there isn't going to be any goodwill. In another the worth of the goodwill is to be divided | between the Government and the first lessee. It would be interesting to watch the joy and astonishment of an experienced conveyancing lawyer on perusal of Mr. Russell's leasehold policy. Mr. jßussell permits himself a clause about [swamp and bush lands which cannot be jma/de profitable at once, and suggests Ithat payment be deferred until the land is in profit. But we will suppose that a hundred settlers make bush or swamp land profitable by the sweat of their I brows and with their good right arms. 'The whole country is "improved." Then the Government looks over the fence, and ■chuckles malevolently, and, under Mr. Russell's clause 2, appraises the value "that is beyond the influence of the tenant's labor and capita]," and asks him

for a "fair profit," besides the rent that he is now able to pay after he has worn himself to a shadow in clearing or draining. He pays up for the labor of his comrades and. wants to quit his lease, which under Mr. Russell's system is of the same value as it was when he got it —plus the improvements, for the land "must not become dearer through goodwill charges," and clause 5 says despite this that the money for the goodwill (which doesn't exist up till now) shall be divided between the bush-whacking transferor and the Government. "Have there ever .before," says Mr. Russell, "been such progressive proposals laid before the House as these?" Thank providence, there never have,!