THE CHIEF NATIONAL QUESTION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8379, 13 March 1907, Page 5

THE CHIEF NATIONAL QUESTION.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —"A Worker," commenting in your issue of to-day on my contribution entitled "The Chief National Question," says he "fully appreciates the importance of the question." I hardly think he does, because he goes on to complain that I have "thrust it upon the attention of a peaceful community, when we have so many questions of really local interest." It will doubtless surprise "A Worker" very much to hear that the land question, which I call the "Chief National Question," is also the chief local question, and it is the one local ques : tion which is least discussed. Why is it the chief local question? Because the residents of Masterton give to its ground a value almost as great as that of the property built on the ground, and that value, instead of being used for the benefit of all, goes into a few pockets. Thus, the owners of these pockets reap the fruits of other people's labour, and give them nothing in return, which is, of course, theft, but which the law does not treat as theft. We all say that every man is free, that he ,has a right to be free, and that, being free, he has a right to what his powers are capable of producing. All will say this. But those who hold the ground on which the people of Masterton work take £1 per week from every adult worker for simply allowing him to work. This is manifestly a denial of those natural rights which all recognise should be allowed to all; it is a denial of freedom and justice. Why should I, why should any man, pay £1 per week to some other man for permissiom to be on this planet? If we pay that money to anybody it should be either to our local or to our national government, to be received back in benefits from the government Masterton is a well-arranged and beautiful town, but why should I be made to pay £1 per, week for permission to live in Masterton, and pay house rent and rates on the top of that pound per week? Surely this is the chief local question. What other local question is there that comes anywhere near it in importance? But this greatest of all local questions is the one which Masterton people do not consider, is the one which they utterly neglect, and yet it is the .one wh'ch most deeply affects the material well-being of the community. ."A Worker" asks me to "state definitely the period in English history, since the Conquest of 1066, \yhen there was little vagrancy, no work-houses, no poor-la%v system, and no need for it." I have no books to refer to. My authority is Professor Thorold Rogers, a very high and reliable authority. lam -writing for his book on "Six Hundred Years of Work and SVages in England." I think the period was what are called "The Dark Ages." How strange that in "the Dark Ages", when the instruments of industry were comparatively primitive labouring men were able to earn enough in one month to keep them and their families three months. Labouring men cannot do that now, and yet the wealth production of these days is very much greater per worker than it was in "the Dark Ages." "A Worker" also asks me to say what I mean by my remarks on the urban land question. He is curious to know whether I suggest the imposition of a tax of 20s in the pound on land values. My answer is, that in my opinion Liberal policy should be to largely* increase the land tax and make it progressive; impose a graduated tax on unearned incomes from other sources than land:, treble the death duties / on the larger estates; and sweep away, all taxes on the. necessaries of life. This, as it seems to me, is a moderate and practicable policy. It would make a much better distribution of wealth, and greatly" increase the freedom and happiness of the whole people. If the Government adopt it their majority at the next general election would be greater than it was at the last, and it would be a more truly Liberal majority. It would not contain any Tories in Liberal clothes —a great gain. The chief need of the country at this moment is a real, united, and enthusiastic Liberal party in the House, and that is, the blessing which Government would win for the country, by adopting this policy. * ' I have nothing to say against landowners and men of wealth personally. I have many friends among them, for whom I have great respect. lam attacking not men but a system. Nor am I proposing confiscation, but simply measures to reduce, as far as practicable, the present confiscation of the landless people's earnings. If adopted, my proposals would materially benefit, rather than injure, small land and property owners. Only the larger owners would lose anything, and they would have many compensations for the loss. —Yours, etc., GRACCH JS.