The Temuka Leader THURSDAY. SEPTEMBER 27, 1883. THE LAND QUESTION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1153, 27 September 1883, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY. SEPTEMBER 27, 1883. THE LAND QUESTION.

We publish to-day a contributed article on Land Nationalisation. It will be seen at a glance that the writer is thoroughly conversant with his subject, and that he has treated it with great ability. But whilst admitting that the article possesses considerable literary merit, we wish it to be understood that we do not hold ourselves responsible for the conclusions arrived at. It may seem inconsistent to publish articles with which we do not agree, but we have very fair reasons for doing so. It is an excellent exposition of the Land Nationalisation proposal; the style is clear, concise, and to the point,'and we feel confident that it cannot fail to,

interest our readers. We have favored Land Nationalisation only to the extent that no injustice shall be done. If it were adopted on the basis laid down in the article in question, it would result in national as well as individual ruin. Our friend’s argument is that n® one ought to hold property in land ; that it is a gift of Nature like air and water, and that no single individual ought to own exclusively any portion of it. To bring about this he purposes to transfer all titles to the Grown, to make the present owners tenants of the Crown, and to impose such rent on theni as would defray all the expenses of Government. The present owners would not be disturbed, but a rent would, be exacted from them, With the theory of Land Nationalisation—that is that there should be no property in land—we thoroughly agree, but we say that to exact rent from persons who have paid dearly for their land would bo outrageous. It means the imposition of such a land tax as neither Mr Montgomery nor Sir George Grey ever dreamt of, the ruin of all the land owners in the coilony, and the consequent ruin of the colony itself. Let us see how it would work. Let us suppose that Tom Jones bought 100 acres of land for £IOOO, and let us suppose again that 5 per cent is the rent the Government exacts under the Nationalisation system. By paying £IOOO cash down, Tom Jones paid 20 years Land Nationalisation rent in advance. Would it not be an outrageous thing to impose another 5 per cent rent on him now ? The proposal of Land Nationalisation is right enough if it could be carried into practice, but some way more just than that proposed must be found. To our mind the original purchase money of the land with interest should be returned to the present owners, before their title ; to it is taken away from them.

LAND NATIONALISATION. [Communicated.] The subject of Land Nationalisation is one that is attracting the minds of the greatest men of our day, and it is truly a subject that commends itself to the thoughts of all our readers. Ptolemy says ‘ He that is to follow philosophy must be a freeman in mind,’ and un-, doubtedly the person who hopes to arrive at a just conclusion as to the best remedy or remedies for the existing unsatisfactory state of our land laws, must set out on his search with an unbiassed and unprejudiced mind. Mr George’s proposals—set forth in his book. Progress and Poverty—for the removal of these abuses, are briefly summed up in the words ‘ We most make land common property,’ and this is to be effected by ; (1) Making the State the landlord. (2) Abolishing all freehold ownership. (3) And, by replacing the taxes levied on all alike by the rent paid by the landholder to the Government for the use of his land.

We must point to the fact that none of these proposals aim at the dispossession of the present landowners, but simply to convey their titles to the Crown ito.whom they shall pay rent in iie&of all) taxes. Many people—but yeryr partially acquainted with the subject—suppose that Land Nationalisation implies 1 a revolution, a wholesale seizure of everybody’s land ; The sooner they get rid of this fallacious idea the better for everyone. We now propose to state as concisely as possible one at least of the leadihg arguments in favor of the changes advocated. Firstly,'what bestows on any man the right to call a piece of land his own ? George in an eloquently written chapter—the Justice of the Eemedy—proves conclusively that the . only title primarily that a man has to anything on earth is that it is the product of his own labor. He can, of course, however,) obtain a title to the fruits of another man’s labor by giving him an adequate consideration in exchange therefor. But the primary title always takes it rise from labor expended,’ Thus, if a man goes into the forest and taking a bough from a tree fashion it into an axe handle, he acquires a true title, and the only sort of a title admissible to the implement by virtue of the labor be has expended upon it. If he sell it to another person in exchange for something he requires, be it money or any other species of property, his title of course passes to the new owner. Applying this test, then, can we say that land is the produce of man’s labour? Surely the answer must be: No. Nature has given the world for man’s use, and she ‘ acknowledges no ownership or control in man save as the result of exertion, and she is absolutely impartial to all men and considers them all on an equal footing. ‘ If a pirate spreads his sails, the wind will fill them as well as it will fill those of a peaceful merchantman or missionary bark ; if a king and a common man be thrown overboard neither can keep his bond above water except by swimming ; birds will not come to be shot by the proprietor of the soil any quicker than they will come to be shot by the poacher ; fish will bite or will net bite at a hook in utter disregard as to whether it is offered them by a good little boy who goes to Sunday, school or a bad little boy who plays truant; grain will grow only as the ground is prepared and the seed is sown ; the sun shines and the

rain falls alike on the just and the unjust. The laws of Nature are the decrees of the Creator, There is written in them no recognition of any right save that of labor, and in them is written broadly and clearly the equal rights of all men to the use and en - joyment of Nature ; to apply to her by their exertions, and to receive and possess her reward. Hence as Nature gives only to labor, the exertion of labour in production is the only title to exclusive right.’ No one would think of denying a man’s right to breathe the air, nor yet his just share of water to drink, but yet he would be excluded hy some from a just participation in the land. ‘ The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal right to breathe the air: it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have arightto be in this world and others no right. We are all here by the permission of the Creator and we have a just claim to a share in the bounties of of Nature, that is the means that the Creator has provided for bur existence. The argument so far stated is, this, then : The world— land , air, water, etc, is given for man’s use, and for the use of every man, and therefore no particular man lias any claim to the exclusive right to the bounties of the Creator. Theoretically each person born has a right to a share in the land, as practically he shares light, air, water, etc. Again the produce of labor alone is the only thing that any man has an, exclusive right to, and therefore there can be no title to absolute possession of land, only to the improvements ami value of the produce thereof, which la-?t is the exclusive right of the producer, We have now briefly glanced at priv ite property in land from an ethical point of view, and the conclusion—however unpleasant—forces itself upon ns, that no man can lay claim to any piece of land to the exclusion of others. Time and space will not permit us to consider the politico, economic view of the proposal. One of the problems that is troubling the minds of the political economists of the day, is how to get at what is known as the ‘unearned increment’ in land. Take, for instance, the keen sighted man, who, paying a visit to Temuka or Geraldine, secs in them the nucleus of future flourishing and populous cities. He sees a nice plot of ground—likely to be near the centre of one of these cities—and buys it say for LIOO. He then travels for several years all over the face of the earth, and by this time a magnificent city has arisen hard by his little piece of land, ithe value of which has risen to £2OOO. Ibis sagacious individual soils out, and pockets £l9oo. This money is the ‘ unearned increment,’ and it is aptly named . What has such a man done for this £1900? Nothing! Who was it then so enhanced the value of his property ? The persons that built and labored around it ; and have not these people a just claim to a share, if not to all, this £I9OO ? The owner has done nothing for it; he has expended no labor in return for it, he has therefore no title to it ; the persons that have a. title to it are undoubtedly those who have by their labour increased the value of the land.: This is but one of the great evils that' Land Nationalisation would sweep away. No man that did not use it would have anything to do with land, What an evil would this do away with , in Ireland 1 It would put an end at least to the crying injustice of absentee- , Jsm. Mr George has pointed out that as the riches of the rich increase, so in proportion does the poverty of the poor; portion is growing more prosperous and that is. that the human race is not advancing as a whole : that only one luxurious, while the other is sinking deeper and deeper into want and misery. This is a fact, happily yet unseen in New Zealand, but one that is keenly felt in Europe and, America in the present day. This growing inequality between the two classes believers in Land Nationalisation hope by ■ the adoption of their scheme to sweep away, and if this alone can be brought about, what a vast benefit would be conferred on the human race I

We must again remind the thinking public that Land Nationalisation does not imply a clean sweep of all laws human and' divine, the ejectment of landowners and all the attendant evils. To show the Hues on which it is proposed to be carried out, we may adduce these quotations: * Separate ownership would merge into the joint stock ownership of the public. Instead of being in the possession of individuals the country would be held by the great corporate body— Society. Instead of leasing his acres from an isolated proprietor, the farmer would lease them from the nation. Instead of paying his rent to Sir John, or His Grace, he would pay it to an Agent or Deputy-Agent of the community. Stewards would he public officials instead of private ones, and tenancy the only laud tenure.’ And again,

‘ It is not proposed either to purchase or confiscate private property in land. The first would be unjust; the second needless. Let the individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let them continue to call it their land ; let them buy and sell, and bequeath and devise, It is not necessary to confiscate land ; it is only necessary to make . . . . ’ rent parable for it to the State. ‘ What is, therefore, proposed as the simple yet sovereign remedy, which will raise wages, increase the earnings of capital, extirpate pauperism, abolipbi

poverty, give remunerative employment to whoever wishes, afford free scope to human powers, lessen crim ’, elevate morals and taste and intelligence, purify G"vernment, and carry civilisation to yet nobler heights, is to appropriate umt bp taxation ‘No owner of lanl need be. dispossessed, and no restriction need be placed upon the amount of land anyone could hold. For, rent being taken by the Stale in taxes, land, no matter in whose name it stood, or in what parcels it was held, would be really common properly, and every memberof the community would participate in thei advantages of its (the State’s) ownership.’