The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1883. LAND NATIONALISATION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1117, 12 June 1883, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1883. LAND NATIONALISATION.

''Sell no more land, but do not disturb the present landowners" was the sum and substance of the land policy enunciated by Mr Postlethwaite in his recent Geraldine speech. He was against the alienation of any more Crown lands, and also opposed to land nationalisation. This is rather contradictory, Any one that holds that land should not be alienated from the Crown ought to be in favor of land nationalisation, for the very reason that tliej m°a:i the same thing. Not to alienate the land is to nationalise it, and when Mr Postlethwaite opposes alienation he in reality supports nationalisation. But Mr Postlethwaite put the matter very differently before the meeting. He read an extract irotn a Dunedin paper in which Mr Barron was reported to have said that it ouyht n-.t to be admitted that the land had Uni s.dd at all. It was exfremelr f<».dish of Mr Ba:von to say such a tlu'mr, and it was not right of Mr Postlethwaite to lay it down as the doctrine of land uatioualiaa-

tion, because no one knows better than be does that it was not tbe correct wny to put it. No one can maintain, nor will any one attempt to assert, that tbose who came to this colony and paid hard cash for their land have no right to it. They certainly have if they only gave one farthing per acre for it and it were worth £lO an acre now, and any one who asserts they have not is not fit to be at large. And those who advocate the nationalisation of the land acknowledge their right to it too. No one ever thought of such 'robbery' as Mr Postlethwaite urged was meant by land nationalisation, neither is it contemplated that landowners shall suffer any hardship at all. Land nationalisation means that all the land in the colony shall be vested in the Crown, but it does not mean that the Crown shall ta':o if away from those who own it at present by a high hand. By no means. The proposal is that the Crown shall buy the laud back again from its prespnt owners at a reasonable price, and let it to then on a lease that will last for ever unless they fail to pay the rent charged for it. There is no more robbery in that any more than there is in paying 20s in the £. Mr Poßtl"thwaito himself very forcibly showed that a perpetual lease was every bit as good a tenure of land as a freelr'ld. If the Government gave Mr Postlcthwaite a fair and reasonable price for his land, and a perpetual lea=e at a Wrenta', wou'd not his position be improved ? A perpetual lease is just, a* good as a freehold. The leaseholder loses his land when ho cannot pay the rent, the freeholder when he cannot pay his debts. But the question may be j asked how can this be done when most ' of the land is sold. There is no doubt it is rather difficult, but if it were un- j dertaken it could be done. W*» have, not seen any definite scheme laid down so far. Those who have discussed the subject havo not, so far as we know, | entered into the details of the \iay in which it could be worked. But we think that if the Crown took all the land into its own possession there would be no difficulty in raising sufficient money to pay a part of the price given to the present owners for it, and for the balance of the purchase money bonds bearing interest at the same rate as it could be borrowed at could be given. The Government then could charge such lent for the land as wou!d provide interest for the borrowed capital, defray the expenses of legislation, and have something to pUtlbj as a sinking fund with the view of eventually freeing the country from debt. This is the way it must be done if ever land nationalisation is adopted, but we do not profess to be able to go into details in the space at our disposal. The result of the adoption of this system would be the abolition of all kinds ot taxation. Under the nationalisation system all kinds of in duslries would be freed from taxation, because the rents from the lands would pay the expenses of Government, And it would do more than this. It would bring millions of pounds into the colony, all landowners would have plenty of money to invest in starling industries which relieved of taxation would immediately flourish, and we should soon be a busy thriving people, sending goods away to all parts of the world, instead of importing them as we are at present. These are our ideas of land nationalisation ; this is what we understand it to be, and it is because we think it tvould make this colony ( great, glorious and free' that we advocate it. If we saw in it any of the confiscatory elements that Mr Postlcthwaite pointed out we phould condemn it as readily as he did, and it shall have our support only to the extent that it shall do no one a wrong. We fully approve of Mr Postlethwaite.g determined to oppose any further alienation of Crown lands. It is the best, the soundest, and the most statesmanlike item in his political programme, and we trust that he will stick to it tenaciously. ' Half a loaf is better thin no bread.' If we cannot nationalise the whole of New Zealand let us make such lands as still remain unsold nitional property, and utilise the rents from them in easing the burden of taxation. That is a step in the right direction, and we trust it will be taken without delay. If Mr Postlethwaite could only muster up the magnanimity of a Quintus Curtius and throw himself infrj the gulf of nationalisation we should say indeed that his views on the land question were perfect, but nn'il he dons that, he only goes half the way. Land untioialisation is not properly understood yet, it is only in its i;if••ney, but we tru.-t that, the light will soon spread, and that those who con demn it at present will be found amongst its sflpportere.