THE WEALTH OF TARANAKI.

Taranaki Daily News, 26 March 1917, Page 6

THE WEALTH OF TARANAKI.

J "To the Editor.

Sir, —It "Progress" will but carefully ana.'yse my letter under the above leading he will see that the only alteration that will brirj- a state of things that will enable everyone to pet a piece of land to obtain a living would be nationalisation of the land, and it will have to come to that sooner or later. The natural corollary is that those industries peculiarly adaptable to this country will j flourish 'without bolstering up, while ! those which peed State propping will | dwindle away, hence "Progress" will get ! the adjustment of Customs duties nt desires, and by no other means, as money must be found tor the working of the State. Graduated tax ofl'ers no solution, private cutting up of estateoffers no solution, so if "patriotism" means love of country, let true patriotism be shown by a recasting and adoption of conditions affecting the ownership of the land. The system of voting or taxing under the graduated ta\' is too slow, and cannot be said to be successful from the point, of view of a poor man's sons Anyore. who will care to follow up what has happened to those estates "burst up," and also those that have been cut up by tiie owners, must, agree- that it is impossible to place poor men on land so treated. What 1 wished readers to consider, and it is seemingly worth repeating, is this: Are we justified in allowing thousands of pounds to be spent in providing efficient and up-to-date instructors to teach our growing youth the technical side and the practical side of scientific farming when

there is no provision made or in s ; ghl for the placing of these pupils on lam' on which they can give effect to the teaching so imparted? I ask "Pro

gress" if the whole "caboose" is not a gigantic farce, and if it is not a ease of starting in the middle of a reform urgently needed in a little country like New Zealand. And, further, if it would not be far better to get right down to the root of the matter, and start on a proper basis? I say, again, that the land ownership question is the crux ol the whole box of tricks affecting the prosperity of the country—its expitn sion for the present and in the immediate future. Regarding my opinion and what I would advocate, I wish to tell "Progress" or anyone else interested that I believe that the doctrine laid down by Henry George shows a solution of the whole difficulty, and a careful perusal of his book "Progress anet Prosperity" should convince them of that fact. A* system of taxation for revenue purposes, both local and Governmental, that penalises a man for every pound or every hour he spends on his. holding is detrimental to real progress. The more he spends on improvements, the higher he is taxed. Surely we have advanced enough in education to. realise that every certain period,.say 25 years, conditions need revision, and in a new country perhaps more often. Is it always to take a great war or other calamity to arouse people to the fact that individualism must go overboard? Talk is often entered upon in regard to the influx of people into the towns, but where has any remedy been provided to coun-ter-act this? Where has provision been made whereby the young people bred in the country can stay on the land, which, I affirm, they would'gladly do if a thorough division of our land laws in the interest of the country, and not a few individuals, were made. At the present time sons of settlers in the country are getting into towns to learn the trades of blacksmiths, painters, carpenters, etc.. and now we have a scheme whereby the sons of townspeople can learn at the hands of up-to-date instructors the .science of agriculture. If this isn't, a u'ce mix up, what is it? If the farmer--' sons could get land they would not ta^' n up town work, but the present *,, M"in of land ownership bars them ''"<" doing so. and I maintain thn f "" ''""■ TOr "big wigs," who aresnpdospc ■ <■• laying the foundations for a pre ■" countiy, take this mattei in ' ban/i "i : i 1 drastic manner, we, the preI ji>it'-, jfciicrttion, are simply duffers to

allow several hundreds of thousands to be spent in providing rooms, appliances and instructors for teaching agriculture as is now being done. Professor F. W. Newman has it: "To make away into mercenary hands, as an article of trade, the whole solid area on which a nation lives, is astonishing as an idea of statesmanship." Land as an article of trade represents the view of the majority of land holders in Taranaki to-day, and when we designate sueh as "farmer'' we do wrong. There are few real farmers in this province to-day. John Stuart Mills declares that: "The land of Ireland, the land of every country, belongs to the people of that country." Yes, but how does Taranaki stand in that respect 1 Every man has a right to a piece of land in order to provide himself, yet we in Taranaki can see in all its corners and in the midst of old settled districts large areas held away from man's use by speculators, and which, covered with weeds of all descriptions, are acting as a menace to other portions that are producing foodstuffs. Some day I hops to particularise such places, and no doubt "Progress" can do the same, for I feel sure he, like myself, will agree with the Hon. W. E. Gladstone who says:". . . . Therefore I freely own that compulsory expropriation is admissible and even sound in principle." Our statesmen (?) are too busy protecting the interests of the big men to worry themselves about the small fry; they are too much obsessed in the present to trouble about the future, but they yell "be patriotic" on every possible occasion, and again I ask, "What is patriotism?" , JOE. B. SIMPSON, > Durban Road, March 18. P.S.—I can supply "Progress" with a copy of "Progress and Prosperity" if be will forward his name.