The Daily News. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1912. LAND SPECULATION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 118, 4 October 1912, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1912. LAND SPECULATION.

One; of the special features in Mr. Massey's new Land Bill is supposed to tie a clause that will check land, speculation, in connection with the allotment* of Crown lands. It is quite time that this restriction was put into force, for the system as at present constituted is distinctly inequitable and 'unsatisfactory. There was a land ballot -in New Plymouth last week, and we know, as a matter of absolute fact,' that some of the (applicants at that ballot were not legitimate. Several speculators, who already held the maximum area of land allowed under the Lands for Settlement Act, were in town for fully a week before the ballot, endeavoring- to induce people who had no,intention of occupying sections, even if they drew them, to enter the ballot for a financial consideration, on condition that they should transfer their sections if they were successful. This, of course, is plain, absolute, unmitigated dummyism, and it is satisfactory to know that the scheme failed so far as these particular speculators were concerned. Writing on this subject recently, the Dunedin Star says that "there has been a growing feeling in thoughtful circles that the land of the Dominion is coming to be regarded too much as a counter in the game of chance, as something that may be reproductive iby reason of rising market values, rather than as something that should be made reproductive, in- the truest sense, by hard work and scientific farming." This is -certainly a serious matter, for it means the systematic obstruction of genuine settlement by peoj pie who have no capacity for farming, and no desire to engage in it, but who are simply trying to profit by the good fortune that luck may throw in their way. There is plenty of evidence of this in the reports of the Commissioners of Crown Lands as embodied in a Departmental Blue Book. One of these reports, from Auckland, states that "in many cases forfeiture is effected at the seleci tor's own request, a fruitful source of ' this being the selection of Crown lands without prior personal inspection. Afterwards, when the selector goes to inspect his newly-acquired property, he finds that it does not come up to his expectations, or is not the class of land he anticipated, ot the locality or difficulties of transport promise to make the task of breaking-in a new area more arduous than he is prepared to undertake, and he applies to be relieved of an ill-chosen bargain. It cannot be too often emphasised that the practice of selecting lands without previous inspection is an extremely inadvisable one." The Canterbury Commissioner is little less drastic when he reports: "The total number of holdings forfeited and surrendered during the year was 20, comprising an area of 77C0 acres. Fifteen of these were renewablelease holdings in the land-for-settlements

blocks opened during the last two years. It is found that occasionally people apply for these lands without previous inspection, and after seeing the section on its being allocated them, prefer to surrender than occupy." In our own district the complaint with regard to the numerous forfeitures and surrenders for the year is even less satisfactory, for the Commissioner says: "Thess took place amongst the more recent selections, and unless all applicants for land are subjected to a personal examination as to their fitness and financial resources it is iikely that a certain proportion of them will be found unsuitable, belonging to the class who select kind in ignorance of the work required to bring it into profit, and more as a venture." All this seems to point to systematic speculation in Crown leases', and it strengthens the suggestion ithat the ballot system is not by any means a perfect one, and tliat its abolition, and the substitution of open bidding would secure any profit from the sale of the leasehold going to the community as a whole and not to private individuals.