THE LAND QUESTION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1173, 3 May 1884, Page 2

THE LAND QUESTION.

TO T3B EDITOR Sir, —Being a constant reader of your paper, I have been very much impressed of late with the force of your leading articles. I have no hesitation in saying there is no eountry paper in the colony which displays more sound logical argument in its articles, and, -without flattery, it reflects great credit on the paper. Anyone who has thoughtfully read the articles contained in the issues of Saturday, 19th, aad Tuesday the 22nd, insts.,must be fully convinced that you will not allow an opportunity to pass without posting your readers up in the sayings and doings of those to whom we have intrusted the responsibility of the Government of the colony. We, as residents in this out-district, are very apt to be led astray by a plausible leader in a journal of such importance as can secure the services of one who was styled the other night the 'Prince of Journalists.' As a community, we look i to the Press for information upon all public topics, and if the Press is to be the educator of the people, then the I people are indebted to you, sir, for the I fair and manly criticisms contained in those articles, for we see there both sides of the question fairly dealt with. But for the Timaru Herald or any other paper to speak of the advocates of a special tax on the absentee landlords as a party of misrule, and to state that it such ameasure were carried into law it would shake the security of all the property and destroy the external credit of the colony, such twaddle is absolute nonsense. Absenteeism is the curse of all countries. Then let us, as a new colony, try and crush it in the bud. \ou quote, sir, a numb«r of living authorities to proye this, hut we can come a little nearer homo, for we live in a district where are scores of intelligent men who have left a country cursed by absentee landlordism. They came here and found a free country and a free soil, and what has been the result ? They bare settled down on small farms, and, by dint of industry and perseverence, if they iiAve not attained a position of affluence they are very comfortably situated and occupy a position in society to which they could not have attained had they stayed in a country cursed and crushed by the agents of absent landlords. We find these men law-abiding citizens, and, as a class, such as any natien might be proud of. In the interests of ourselves and of our children this system of absenteeism must receive a ch«ck, and there is not a more effectual method than the one suggested by Mr Montgomery in his speech, viz., by a special tax, which would undoubtedly compel them to cut up the land into small farms. Perhaps no country is more suitable for peasant proprietorship than New Zealand. The question as to the comparative advantages and disadvantages of cultivating the land by peasant proprietors has been perhaps more keenly discussed by political economist* than any other subject. Not only political economists but practical farmer* ira decidedly favorable to peasant proprietorship. A peasant proprietor frequently cultivates his farm entirely by the labour of himself and family. In this case land, labour and capital are all supplied by the same individual. II" therefore claims the whole produce of the land, and rent, wages ami profits are merged together. Amongst English political economists the two most, prominent champions of the system ure Mr Mills and Mr W. Thornton, Both of these writers have collected a great mass of facts bearing the subject. Peasant proprietors imply small farms, but a small farm cultivated by its owner differs essentially from a small farm occupied by a tenant at will or rented upon a lease. The well kn >wn Arthur Young has happily said < give a man the full possession of a bleak rock and he will turn it into a garden, but give a man nine years lease of a garden and he will convert it into a desert.' I might quote a great number of writers whose opinions upon the subject coincide. I select Albrecht Thaer, a writer on the different systems of agriculture, who has expressed himself very decidedly in favor of large properties being divided into small farms. He says he is convinced that the n«tt produce of land is greater when farmed by small proprietors than when farmed by great proprietors or their tenants. Mr Kay, a most intelligent English writer, also affirm? fhjs. He expresses a very

decided opinion, not only that the grogs produce of any given, number of acres held or cultivated by small or peasant proprietors is greater than the grow produce of an equal number of acres held by a fetr great proprietors and cultivated by tenant farmers, but that the nett produce of the former, after deducting all the expences of cultivation, is also greater than the nett prodace of the latter. I would state in the most explicit manner that I believe it would not be desirable to create small landed properties by compulsory legislation. Neither the aggregation of land nor its sub-division ought to be enforced by legislation. If things are allowed to take their natural course and such land as remains uncultivated and owned by absent landlords and great mortgage companies be made to bear a proportionate share of the taxation of tha colony, the owners of such land would find it more remunerative to cut up the ;L land into small farms than pay taxation on unproductive land.—l am. etc., Amor Patrlb. Geraldine, Apri] 30, 1884. ♦