THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, JULY 4, 1910. THE ETERNAL QUESTION OF TENURE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10031, 4 July 1910, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, JULY 4, 1910. THE ETERNAL QUESTION OF TENURE.

There are many matters in regard to which we should like acccurate information, but owing to their character we cannot come to any definite conclusions. Surmise, however, is often useful and instructive. We cannot help~wondering, and a similar thought must often have come into the minds of others, how much of the country's morey the Government has absolutely ] wn3ied in discussing the eternal J question of land tenure, and in endeavouring to find out in which way the wi'ld bio as. The Land Commission established some yeais ago cost, if our recollection is correct, some £15,000 at one ftill swoop Then, as every one knows, Parliament does not continue talking day after day without costing the taxpayers' pocket a considerable sum. Assuming that Parliament has devoted, say, a period, in the eggregate, of twelve months to talking land tenures, the cost of such discussions would run into many thousands of "pound?, arid we'may ask to "what extent has 'i the country benefited thereby?"' We-:< are afraid that the answer must be that,. 'practicallythe amount of <

benefit derived is periloulsy near be-

ing absolutely nil. - * « * # * ] There are two chief reasons why i the land question is a difficult one to settle! Firstly, the sheer ignorance of many ol those who exercise an influence on the Government in regard to it, and, secondly, the use of argument on the question by individuals who are actuated by purely personal and political motives. We have been both interested and amused by certain remarks itade by the Hon J. R. Sinclair, in the Legislative Council on Friday last, He said that the Land Bill was'the most important measure the Council could be called upon to deal with. Last session the whole controversy was on the question of leasehold or freehold, but j that did not more than touch the real problem. The difficulty was that Parliament had now to deal with an alienated heritage. Tfte plain fact was that a very one-sided bargain was ijiade by the late Sir John McKeczie - ovar ; the lease-in-perpetuity, one of the- made in connection dealings. The State sh'uuld now be getting back some chare of that increment fthich had been parted with in perpetuity. As for the remaining • portion of the country's estate. Parliament had always tu keep one leading principle in view, that wasTiat the commun-

ity was strongly divided on the question of tenure. Under such circoumstances .Parliament must provide loth eyiseftrie. He agreed with those who held'that great as was the question of land tenure, it was equalled in importance by that of [and settlement, It was bad business | to force leaseholds upon freeholders, I arid freeholds upon leaseholders. They \ must do al£that was possible to bring the people into willing touch with the soil. He waa in favour of that portion of the land which was left being exchanged for an agreed-upon share of the increase in value that must accrue. ; - >*** ' * # It was the Kentucky politician who took the wise precaution of informing bis audience ttiat if his "unalterable principles" did not . suit thai" they could be easily altered until they did fit; and we fear that Mr Sinclair's attitude towards politics is very similar when he naively remaiks that It la "had business to force leaseholds upon freeholders and freeholds upon leaseholders." We should be much surpiised to learn that there was ever yet a man on the soil, or one who wanted to get there, who would accept a leasehold if he could get a ..reehold, or a lease with the right to convert into a freehold. It is, no doubt, upon much the same principle that Mr Sinclair conceives that it is the duty of Parliament to "provide both systems.'' However, when Mr Sinclair says that Parliament has now to deal with an "aIK enated heritage," and that the late Sir John McKenzie made a very one sided bargain in regard to the lease-in-perpe fruity system, we must confess that we are with him every inch ot the way. * * * '# * The utter inability of t' e Socialist leaseholder.to appreciate the practical aspect of the land question becomes strikingly apparent when he raves against the proposal, which we believe will most certainly become law some day, that Crown tenants holding leases-in-perpetuity under the Lands for Settlement Act, shall be allowed to acquire the freehold of their section?. By giving a lease--in-perpetuity the State has (except in the eyes of a theoretical leaseholder) parted for all time with any benefit that it might derive from the unearned increment. It is, indeed, an "alienated heritage," but such is the love of men to acquire the fee simple of their holdings that they axe prepared to purchase them from the State, although the. latter has leased them away forever! The wisdom of the State agreeing to the proposition is plainly manifest to the man whose ideas are of a practical character, based on experience. In a nutshell, the position is that the State would convert an absolutely dead interest into a good many millions of money, while the lands for which the State received the money would become liable to taxation in a manner from which they are now exempt. Surely there should be no' hesitancy on the part of the Government in regard to such a matter!