The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, MAY 31, 1884. THIS ASHBURTON ELECTION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1185, 31 May 1884, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, MAY 31, 1884. THIS ASHBURTON ELECTION.

The Ashburton Mail published in its hist issue the few remarks we made on Mr Jolly’s candidature for the Ashburton seat, and asks, “ What will our contemporary say when it learns what Mr Jolly’s views really are?” Well, it our contemporary wants to know, it is that Mr Jolly went nearer hitting on the real cause of this colony’s depressed condition than any one whose speech we have yet read. The Mail, to its credit be it said, gave Mr Jolly a very fair report. The other papers referred to him in a bantering ridiculing style, and

only gave the outlines of what he said, but the Mail published his facta and figures, though in a condensed form, in a manner that showed it was honestly inclined to do him justice. According to the Mail’s report Mr Jolly went to the root of the evil though, he seems to have got a little mixed as he went along. He pointed out, aa we have frequently done in these columns, that the evil commenced with the Public Works policy, and argued that Sir Julius Vogel accepted a bribe and went Home, leaving the landsharks to acquire possession of the land. That he is right is indisputably trne. The Public Works scheme contemplated the settlement of the people on the land, as will be seen by referring to the speeches delivered on the subject, which can be found in Hansard. Almost every speaker spoke of the absolute necessity of settling people on the land, and one (Mr C. O’Neil) went the length of saying that “ he would give, as a birthright, forty acres of land to every child rocked in a colonial cradle.” Instead of this the land was sold in large areas to companies, capitalists and speculators, and the result is summarised as follows in the Mail’s report of Mr Jolly’s speech : —“ There were 30,832 settlers in the colony, and 10,309,170 acre* of land ; 7,680 owned 19,919 acres from one to ten acres, or an average of 2\ acres each; 10,950 owned 366,198 acres, from 10 to 100 acres, or an average of acres ; 9,777 persons owned 1,680,121 acres, from 100 to 640 acres, or an average of 191 acres ; 2415 owned from 640 acres to 100,000 acres, and upwards of 8,232,899 acres were held in holdings averaging 3409 acres each. Let them take 10,600,000 acres, and say one-half was bought cash down and one-half for five pounds an acre from the land speculators who bought at from five shillings to £2 an acre, or an average of £1 per acre, that would make the sura of ±,5,000,000, and allowing the farmers had given £5 an acres for the land the speculators would have received £25,000,000, ©r £20,000,000, out of the fruits of the

labor of the people, thus leaving them without money. (Applause.)” Our readers will recollect that we have frequently pointed out that this, and nothing else, was the cause of the depression. The farmers bought the land too dear from the speculators, they had not sufficient capital to pay for it, they had to borrow the money, and they find it as much as they can do now to pay the interest, while tljoso of them who were not thrifty and industrious hare been long since ruined. Ashburton people need not go far from home to find a verification of this assertion. In Ida diagnosis of the commercial disease Mr Jolly was correct, but he sadly wandered away from his subject, and took the wrong direction altogether, tie is undoubtedly a rough diamond, who wants only polishing up to sparkle so as to illumine the darkness in which political thought is shrouded at present. He threw all the blame on Sir Julius Yogel, forgetful of the fact that he had to spend millions in the purchase of votes so as to carry out his scheme in the deformed and pernicious manner which has literally destroyed this colony. We are entirely opposed to Sir Julius re entering politics now for a few months for no other purpose than to endeavor to get the £7OOO he lays claim to, but at th« same time we believe he honestly intended to settle the people on the land, and that it was in disgust at the turn things had taken that he left the colony, Mr Jolly has his “ fads” like all our great politicians. He is mad on the loading of the ships and the cultivation of the colonial coal trade. It would pay the West Coast coal people to employ him to “ stump ” the country for them. But we do not purpose to say anything of his “ fads.” There is another candidate before the constituency whose views are worthy of notice, because they are as perniciously stupid as Mr Jolly’s are crude and undefined. We mean the Patagonian politician of the Methven district—Mr J. 0. Wason. It is land rings, under the special guardianship of the king of the gridiron, Sir John Hall, that has hitherto obstructed the settlement of the people on the land, and with these Mr Wason has hitherto allied himself. His published utterances betray his true disposition. He denounces as communistic, socialistic, etc., the only truly liberal measure the present Government ever introduced—the leasing system. We wish we had some means of conveying our ideas to the Ashburton people on this subject, but as we have not we trust our contemporary will put the matter in it* true light before them. The leasing system enables men with small capital toestabhsh themselves in a borne. For instance if a man has £2OO, and takes 100 acres of land under the leasehold system, he has sufficient capital to work it and he goes on swimmingly. Let us say the land is valued at £5 an acre, and the Crown rent is 5 per cent on the capital value, he has to pay £25 a year to the Govern ment. He will have spent his year very badly if he cannot easily pay that. Take now another man with £2OO who buys 100 acres at £5 an acre. He pays his L2UO down, and ha* to borrow LSOO more, L3OO to pay for the land and L2OO to work it on equal terms with Ins neighbor wfiohasthe leasehold. He may get the L3OO for 8 or 9 per cent., with law costs, commissions, etc., added, but lie will not get the money for working his land at less than 10 percent., with the cost of preparing an agricultural lien and other expenses added. Without the slightest doubt the poor freeholder pays LSO, whereas tin leaseholders pays only L 25, and even than

that L 25 goes to taxation. But even if the leaseholder had only LIOO to the freeholder’s L2OO to start with he would be better off. He could get LIOO by giving a lien over his cop, and that at 10 per cent would only raise his rent to L 35 or L 37 (law expenses included). The fact is, leasing means offering poor people facilities for acquiring homes for themselves ; selling means securing to the wealthy the monopoly of land. Leasing means securing to the Government the “ unearned increment” ; selling means putting it into the pocket of the speculator and m«ney lender. Leasing means lessening of taxation, because tbe rents help in that way (L200,()00 a rear being the amount of Crown rents at present) ; selling means increased depression, because all the profits will be secured by the mnnev-lender and speculator. Yet Mr Wason says this is frightening capital away from the colony. Is there a man in Ashburton so idiotic as to believe that because extraordinary facilities are offered to people to settle down on land, to increase production, and dig wealth out of the soil, men of money are frightened to come to the colony ? Ashburton people are too enlightened, too spirited, to be led into electing a man with such views. But unfortunately so far they hare not a very good selection. It is a case of brains versus social position and wealth, as regards Messrs Jolly and Wason. Mr Jolly has brains, but he has neither good education nor wealth to lecomraend him. Mr Wason has the advantages of education and wealth, but—well he is most decidedly innocent of any knowledge of the simplest rudiments of political economy. Wo shall look with considerable interest to what the views of the third candidate are.