THE LYTTELTON TIMES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1145, 26 February 1884, Page 3

THE LYTTELTON TIMES.

"We have been requested to publish the following letter, which the Lyttelton Times declined to insert :

" TO THE EEITOR LYTTELTON TIMES. j « fjjH,—l beg to congratulate you on the way you demolished land nationalisation. You showed that there are no grinding down landlords in New Zealand, and that it would be foolish to do anything until we find ourselves face to face with the squalor and misery begot of landlordism. Of course it would. Only a fool of a doctor would resort to remedial measures until he found his patient hopelessly and irrecoverably gone beyond the possibility of being cured, That is the time for the skilful doctor to step in. And then, sir, the nonsense about every man having an inherent right to a permanent home in the land of his birth ! This is stupid nonsense, as you have very ably shown ; therefore it would be well, 2 think, if a schemecould be devised, which would enable landless-born children to be utilised in a manner that would increase the productiveness of the landowners' property. I would suggest a j scheme, only I do not like to appear cruel ; but I have no doubt you can guess what I am hinting at. While land is private property it is absurd to say that landless-born people have a right to live upon it. They have not, sir, they are only trespassers and ought to be treated as such. And then, sir, the impudence of these people who say that land should be common property because it happens to be identical with air and water inasmuch as it is necessary to human existence 1 Ah I but you shut them right up, sir. You showed them there was a radical difference between air, water and land, inasmuch as that while the first two elements were unlimited in supply land was a fixed quantity. Of course it is, and, as you have moet logically argued, because it is a fixed quantity and limited in supply that is the very reason why a monopoly of it should be given to a few to the exclusion of the many. Allow me again to congratulate you, sir, ol the unanswerable force of your logic. I was so struck with the force of your argument that I have adopted the principle enunciated by you in my domestic arr?ngements. Before reading your article I used to nationalise my income amongst my family. It was sufficient to supply us with an unlimited supply of tea and butter, but we could get bread barely sufficient for us all. Recognising the similarity between cur supplies of tea, butter, and bread, and the supplies of air, water and land in this argument, and realising the force of your logic in upholding that because land was limited . in supply a monopoly of it should be given, I determined upon adopting the plan advocated by you. As our tea and butter supply was unlimited I did not interfere with it, but as the bread supply was limited I gave a monopoly of it to my two eldest sons, who now waste it in feeding their dogs, etc., with it, and their brothers and sisters get only the crumbs that fall from them. This plan works admirably. I shall rear up some of my family in the most luxurious way, and they will be looked up to. I see the State is working on the same principle. It enables some people to acquire untold wealth, have magnificent mansions, gorgeous carriages, and everything a State might be proud of, I do not care to refer to the other side of the picture, for, between you and I, Sir. it does not look well that while some of our fellow citizens are becaming millionaires others are starving. I was glad you avoided any reference to that, sir. You used to dash into the land tax once but I am glad you now see the error of you ways. Stick to the logical conclusion you have already arrived at and you can't go wrong—that is, a monopoly should be given of the land because it is limited in supply. That is right. The proper way is to give one man a monopoly of, say, 100,000 acres of it, and let, say, 19,000 men go without a place whereon to lay their heads. I think land is too limited

in supply to give the vermin a grave in it. Ido not begrudge them plenty of air and water so long as they do not interfere with the fishes, hut the land is limited in supply and consequently it is right and proper to give a monopoly of it. And then, sir, the way you handled the question of parcelling out the land was grand. You showed how difficult it would be to gfve every human being in the colony a bit of it. I overheard two old women talking over the same subject, and they came to just the same conclusion that you did. Ido not mean to insinuate that you were inspired by old women, but it struck me as very remarkable that you and the old women had about the same amount of informa tion on the subject. How different are the views of land nationalisers ! A raving fanatic of that species, who lives in Temuka, explains the matter quite diffently from the way you and the old' women look upon it. Hi? plan is that the State shall purchase the land from, the present owners at a fair price, giving them, say, one third cash, and the balance in Government bonds bearing interest. Instead of disturbing the present owners he would give them perpetual leases of their lands, at a rental of a certain percentage on the price at which they bad sold it to the Government. Notwithstanding that you say a costly staff of officials would be necessary this communist says that the rent would be as easily collected as the Property Tax. Fancy the impudence of this arrogant socialist in differing from your opinion ! He maintains that the rents would pay all rates and taxes, support charitab'e institutions, free libraries, etc. with the result that that the civil service instead of being increased would be decreased, and that as landowners inmost cases have to pay to moneylenders in the shape of interest more than they wou'd have to pay to the Crown for rent, land nationalisation would directly benefit them. By thus relieving industry of taxation trade and commerce would be promoted, our national prosperity would be increased, and those who did not occupy land would be benefitted to the extent of being provided witli free institutions and with having neither taxes nor rates to pay. These are the views of this villainous Nihilist told briefly, There is a great difference between what you say and what he says. You and the old women will insist in saying that land nationalisation means to divide land equally between the people of New Zealand, and to go on dividing

" Till every rood of ground supports its man." He says that such is not the case, and that the present occupants, would be allowed to remain in undisturbed possession of their holdings, the change being that instead of paying the moneylender for the use of his money they would pay the State for the use of their land. Of course I prefer to be guided by what emanates from your colossal brain and the experience of my old lady neighbors than by that scoundrelly Invincible. (I have exhausted my vocabulary of names). But that part of you article where you refer to the rent that tvould be charged, was the best of all. You point out that if land wer6 worth a rental of £2 per acre, and the State charged only £1 per acre the general public would be defrauded of the difference. Quite right again, I say, although that Temuka maniac whom I have quoted before says the rent could be levied in the same way that the land tax was, that is, according to the requirements of the State. He says he would raised or lower the rent just as the Property Tax is raise or lowered at present, but that he would provide against the possibility of any Government being able to charge higher rent than ithat would be fair to the occupiers of the land. If the rents from lauds provided free institutions it did not matter one straw to the public whether the charge was £l, £2 or one one farthing, all they want are free institutions. What a villainous idea. Of course, as you say, if land was worth a rental of £2 an acre, and the State only charged £1 (that being sufficient to pay all the taxes and support charitable institutions) it would be a great injustice to the general public not to charge the other £l. The general public derive no benefit from the land under existing circumstances, but if you gave them bad habits by giving them free institutions, of course it would be a villainous thing to defraud them by not exacting the last farthing from the Crown tenants. Ah ! Sir, it takes your wise head to see through the possible injustices that I might bo perpetrated, but yon omit a great argument, Supposing the State charged the other £1 per acre and had no use fur it, would not there be a great danger of Major Atkinson forgetting all his Band of Hope and Blue JKibbon pledges ? That is the great danger, s j|-—that under the new system the Government would have such a surplus that they would not know what to do with it, and it is possible they might be tempted to give way to drink. If you had sober men in the Ministry, I am confident they would levy only fair rents, but supposing Sir William Fox and Mr Stout got in, I should not feel comfortable. I am pretty well sure they would charge high rents and spend the surplus in " nips." That's the point, sir, you ought to urge. I am sure it is more forcible than anything you have hitherto said. Landlordism is bad. The land lords of England defraud the industrial classes of about 15-i millions every year in tiiis way : At first the land was parcelled out amongst them on condition that they would supply the King with the sinews uf war. In 1692 a Landlord Par-

liamentr<'<;..!v'd that instead of paying for carrying on the wars as hitherto, they would pay a tax of 4s in the ■£ on the value of their land. They pay that tax of 4s in the £ to this day, but they have taken good care that the land has nev Q r since been re-valued. The English lasdlords, therefore, pay a tax. of 4s in the £ on the value put upon the land three hundred years ago, and this tax comes to 4-§- millions a vear. If the land were taken at its present value, it is estimated that a tax of 4s in the £ would yield a revenue of 20 millions yearly, and thus the landlords, who ought to pay this, by a trick of legislature have thrown the burden on the shoulders of the industrial classes. That is landlordism for you ! And these land nationalisers want to make landlords of Government. My Temuka friend says that this tells very much in favor of land nationalisation, but lam sure you will be able to show him it does not just as ably as you burst up Mr Ollivier's arguments. lam sorry I cannot spare time to endorse more of your highly logical arguments. However, I hope you will stick to the great truths you have propounded, viz. : that persons have no birthright interest in their native country unless they own land—that they are trespassers on other people's private property, and ought to be cleared off; that because land is limited in supply a monopoly of it should be given to a few to the exclusion of the many ; that landowners ought to be allowed to do anything they like with their own property ; and, above all, sir, that land nationalisation would tend to lead Governments to give way to intemperance. Do not forget the last argument. It is more feasible than any you put forth. Then, sir, when you have argued this way, turn round and urge that a land tax should be inflicted on poor unfortunate landowners, who are at present groaning under the burden of the interest they have to pay on borrowed money. Do all these things, and you shall always have the good wishes and support of, Yours, etc., " Anti-Nonsbnse. "

The 'old women' point was evidently too much for the Lyttelton Times. It could never afford to publish that. The letter is certainly a curious one, but the unutterable trash which tbe Times published ii\ its criticism of Mr Ollivier's lecture did not deserve a serious reply. We have read a great deal for and against land nationalisation, but never came across such puerile silly nonsense as that which appeared in the Lyttelton Times.