"PROGRESS," THE UNPROGRESSIVE.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 April 1917, Page 6

"PROGRESS," THE UNPROGRESSIVE.

To the Editor. Sir,—Paradoxical, albeit to my heading, I will give, due honor to the devil, and admit that my opponent, "Progress." is not quite so obtusely improgrcssivc as our much vaunted progressive politician.-,, at present doing the champagne turtlesoup stunt in the Imperial limelight of England's "big smoke"; notwithstanding which he fails lamentably to justly appreciate the basic logic underlying the contents of niy last letter re '"The Wealth of Tara'naki." "Progrcs-," maintains that an increased graduated tax en the. land would draw revenue equitably from the. right source; burst up large estates, prevent undue .speculation and monopoly, thus inducing closer settl ■- incut and increasing productivity from the "source of all wealth." -My contrition is that the'freehold is the very core of all economic injustice to primary mvdueers, for no system of taxation eair romovo the evils due to landlord parasitism, burdensome ground rents, inflated "values," increasing interest and mortgage charges, and systematic decrca-'e of profits, duo to the fact that the cream of increased production is perpetually skimmed by the class which "farms the farmer." And no system of taxation will prevent it. To quote the Hon. Geo. Fowlds. ex-Minister, present champion of the labor party, hading economist and president of the Land Values League in New Zealand: "Such measures ore in themselves only machine measures. They are not the end but onlv the means to the end. In order to secure a political, industrial, and sociil square deal, we want the Government of New Zealand, by the- people for the people, instead of by the monopolists fur the monopolists, so that the land values produced by the people shall be enjoyed by the people instead of Icing wrohgfilly pocketed by the monopolists, so that v.imt is produced by the individual rightly belongs p> the individual; shall be left Mcrrcly to the individual, free from landlord tribute. also advocate the abolition; or where that is impossible, tiia public control and ownership, of al. monopolies, whereby man exploits his fellnwman."

The Hon. Geo. Fowlds evidently mcan>(hat under nationalisation there would he no unearned increment, no soul-de-stroying mortgages, no rent robbers, no levy on the net profits of primary producers. Can "Progress" prove that any system of taxation on freehold tenur.M will ultimately produce this state of pH'airs? Yucatan has adopted nationalisation with success, and larger conntri .\ could do it. The freehold is the curie of Gioat Britain. Every sane economist knows that England's free trade policy would never have damaged the agricultural interests there, had it not been that the people's heritage, was controuct by a monopolistic system., producing exorbitant rentals for urban areas, and devoting the less occupied areas to the rearing of pheasants rather tlym peasants. As a native born Doininionite 1 would obviate the greater disparities of wealth and poverty induced by tne land Gvstem of older countries, for I realise that we can never stabilise the structure ofV nobler democracy on ;.\e quie':-r-ands of the freehold.' Have the older races halted? Do they droop and cnl their lesson? Wearied over there beyond the sea We. take up the task eternal, ' And the burden of the lesson, Pioneers 0! Pioneers. As to the "traffic"' in Crown leaseholds, I repudiate the possibility of this .ng done under a perfect system of nationalisation. Trail if era could take place but only on a just valuation, neeording to improvements. There would be no speculative values or increased increment for anybody, for all land values would be indexed by the rentals paid to the Crown. Next "Progress" claims that because exports and imports have increased "by leaps and bounds," my contention re protected industries is therefore untenable; but cannot "Prog■•ess"' see that so long as increasing customs dues arc imposed protected industries must remain, increasing exports and imports cannot alitor the economies of the present system, but if the Government were to dorive the bulk of revenue required from Crown-rents there would be no customs taxation, and consequently no protected industries. In that ease the law of supply and demand would freely operate to the economic betterment of the peopb. ''Progress" inquries, would I confiscate the land or purchase it? I would do no injustice to the living; but I would abolish the hereditary rignt of prospective descradents, inborn at 1 lie time of nationalisation. Such, however, would have a preferential lessee right. If compensation were deemed necessary in certain cases, the nucleus of a strong sinking fund could be obtained from a substantial increase in beer duty and stamps. I say "the nucleus of a sinking fund" because the fund would bcc.inic increasingly substantial owing to the quick reversion of lands to the State, almost immediately following the public ownership of the land. I admit that my scheme would require time to develop. Meanwhile .f it is any satisfaction to "Progress" he will probably rce an early increase in taxation on land to provide the .£700,00.) or so l'Mnired io meet the charges en the Hew war loan. No donbl the horrible ''hymn of hate"' composed by the farmers will help to disillusion my unprogressive opponent. Certainly niv o.vn scheme could relieve no pressing injustice of to-day, but can we weigh the incalculable happiness and prosperity of millions throughout the ages unlived with the selfish and transient aims of a dying generation?? For we die to-morrow in accordance with htr- adamant, laws of ercii. tion ar.d eynlitfise that uv^Jswatiwis

may rise on the stepping stones of our dead selves to something higher and better. If "Progress" will rot'endorse that, then he and I have but little in common. Re the opinion expressed by "Progress" as to what I could do if 1 possessed a Crown lease, I am of opinion niy prospoets as a-landholder will more probably be the lease-in-perpctuity of "God's Acre" somewhere in the infernal regions ot the Rhine.—Tarn, etc, JAMES 11. SARGENT. 28th Reinforcements, Trentham, April 11