THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, JULY 28, 1891. FREEHOLD V. LEASEHOLD.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2233, 28 July 1891, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, JULY 28, 1891. FREEHOLD V. LEASEHOLD.

The great question in Parliament at tlm present time is the relative merits of a freehold, and perpetual leasehold tenures of land, Jft pur opinion leasehold tenure is the best. If the freeholder cannot pay his way he loses his land; if the leaseholder cannot pay his rent the same thing happens to him. In both instances tenure of the land depends on ability to meet liabilities. The man who buyes a farm sinks his capital in it, and he must make

interest on his money out of it; the man who leases his farm can let his money out on interest, and what he receives in that way will pay his rent. We cannot, therefore, see how a freehold can in any way be better than a perpetual leasehold to the occupier of the land, but we can see plainly that for the community at large the leaseholder is the best. Let us take for instance, two men with an equal amount of capital, an equal capacity, and an equal area of land. The freeholder sinks-all the money he has in purchasing the land, and goes to the money-lender for more. The leaseholder need not borrow because he has his own capital to work with, as he did not sink it in purchasing the land. The rent which the leaseholder pays is 5 per cent, on the capital value of the land, but the freeholder cannot borrow at this rate. He must pay more, and consequently the amount he must pay as interest must be greater than the leaseholder will pay as rent. The advantage would thus be in favor of the leaseholder, as he would have less to pay. It may be said the freeholder would make profit and pay off his mortgage, but we must remember that we are supposing everything to be on equal terms, in which case the leaseholder would make profit also, and let his money on interest, and from this he would derive an income which would pay his rent. In that case, he too would have the land free from rent.

So far we have considered the relative advantages to the occupiers of the land themselves, but the more important question is, how do these things affect the people at large ? The freeholder pays what is actually the same as rent in the shape of interest to a money-lender. A great part of the profits of the land, therefore, goes into the pocket of one man —the money-lender. The leaseholder pays his rent to the Government, and that goes to lessen taxation, and in that way a part of it goes into each pocket in the country. In one instance only one person is benefitting the other, the whole country participates in the profit of the land." To us, therefore, it is inexplicable how any disinterested human being can favor freehold in preference to a perpetual leasehold tenure. We can understand why money-lenders favor it. They want to lend freeholders money; we can understand the opposition of lawyers. The greater part of their income is derived from makig out mortgage deeds, and transferring titles of freehold land. In the case of leaseholders they would have no such work to do. What surprises us is that farmers are in favor of selling instead of leasing the land we have still left. Cannot they see that by leasing it the rents will lessen taxation on themselves. Are they not cutting their own throats by favoring the sale of the land ? The rents from the lands at present leased by the Government bring in a sum close on being as large as the amount obtained from the Property Tax. and only for this, taxation would be very much heavier than it is. If more land were let under the perpetual lease system we would have less taxation to pay. We, therefore, cannot see how anyone who is disinterested can favor selling the land, and consequently we think the perpetual leasehold tenure the best for all.

TIMARU HARBOR BOARD. On last Saturday a deputation of electors waited on Mr W. Evans in Timaru with the view of obtaining his consent to be nominated to the vacancy on the Harbor Board caused by the death of Mr WooUcombe. The chief thing the deputation desired to emphasise was that the proposals of the engineers should not be carried out at present, and their reason for desiring that Mr Evans should stand was that they knew he was opposed to the shifting of the shingle. Mr Evans replied that he certainly was, and after a good deal of talk, condemnatory of the action of the Board, he consented to stand. It is a singular fact that I wherever one turns, town or country, the people as a whole are opposed to the scheme of the engineers, and also to the actions of the Harbor Board. The fact is, that some people cannot be persuaded that the whole thing is not a job to make billets for some people. Without going so far as that, we have no hesitation in saying that the Timaru Harbor-. Board has, on previous occasions, been guilty of jobbery worse than it. We have in an article a few issues ago suggested the desirability of holding public meetings to show the members of the Harbor Board that the people are opposed to them. This we think, would do good, and we are surprised that our suggestion has not been adopted long ago.