THE GENERAL ELECTIONS.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XLIX, Issue 12637, 26 October 1905, Page 8

THE GENERAL ELECTIONS.

THE WANGANUI SEAT

MR. BASSETT AT THE OPERA

HOUSE

•Mr. W. G. Bassett opened his cam paign last evening, when he addressed a meeting in the Opera House. The night was atrocious—in fact, the worst experienced for some considerable time, —jet despite this there was a very largo audience. Mr. J H. Keesing occupied the chair- . , . ~ Mr. Keesing, in introducing Mr. Bsus&ett, said that as he was known to bo a distinct opponent of Mr. Bassett, and as he held no public position in the town, he would like to explain why hewas occupying the chair. His V^orship tlio Mayor being out of town, Mr. Bassett thought of asking the senior councillor (Mr E. N. Liffiton) to take the chair, but as Mr. Liffiton was a member of Mr. Bassett's committee, he thought it would not be wise, as Mr. Liffiton might hs credited with partisanship in ruling the meeting. He had therefore asked the speaker to take the chair, as he could be quite impartial. Mr. Keesing was opposed to Mr. Bassett, but he liked a fair fighter. He thought they would all admit that Mr Bassett had served the community well in several positions of honour and trust for some years past. He might not havo acted in accordance with the speaker's views, but everybody would agree that he had acted honestly. (Applause.) He was quite sure that the Liberals of Wanganui could look forward to a fair fight so far as Mr. Bassett- was concerned.

Mr. Bassett. who was warmly received, said he desired to express his appreciation of the manner in which the ratepayers had responded to his request to meet- him. As he left his house in the pouring rain he did not expect to see more than a hundred iwople at the meeting, and he indeed felt gratified thalt such a largo number oi! ladies and gentlemen should have braved the elements to hear him. It wad not reasonable that he should expect all his hearers to agree with him on the political sentiments to which he might give expression, but though they might differ widely, he felt sure that when the meeting closed he and his audience would be on the same cor- ! dial terms as they were at the outset, and that however widely they disagreed they would agree to disagree. With regard to his relation to the political parties of the present time, he was opposed to the present Government. He would give his reasons for opposition, but he wished to say at the outset that ho was not one )to say that the Government had absolutely no redeeming features. It was said of human character that there was none so bad but had some redeeming features, and he thought the same might be said of the Government. He honestly confessed that this Government had done some very good work. To say that a Government which had been in power for thirteen years had done no good work would be an insult to the people of the colony, because the people of the colony would not 'tolerate for thirteen years a Government that could not show some good work during that period. The first question he intended to deal with was THE LAND QUESTION. He took this first because it was generally recognised as being the most live question before the people of the colony at the present time. There was no doubt that the land administration and land occupation and land management of any country was mo* important to the interest and well-being of that country; indeed, the profitable employment of the land of any country was the keystone to its greatness and prosperity. There had been a considerable amount of legislation in regard to our land tenure. The colony had two classes of political economists, who each had their own particular doctrines with regard to land tenure. There was, first of all, the freeholder, the man who wcrked the land. He says that is the tenure in the best interests of the country and of the farmer who works the land. On the other hand, there was the man who advocated land nationalisation. He told us that if -the whole of the lands of the colony were cut up into reasonable-sized farms and offered to the people it would be a ?ianacea to all the troubles the human amily' was heir to- How far those schools were right, Mr. Bassett _was not going to say at the present time. He then went on to briefly skefcoh the three principal tenures under which the Government had been disposing of the lands of the colony during the last 12 years, and was disposing of it at the present time. First, there was the freehold. A considerable portion of land had been sold for cash, and the Government bad used the money.- The terms were that the purchaser should occupy and effect certain improvements, and on their being carried out he got his Crown title by paying the fee simple. Then there was the lease with right of purchase. The tenure covered 25 years. During the first ten years the le&see had to occupy, and also effect certain improvements. Then, provided the improvements had been carried out to the satisfaction of the ranger, thd lessee had the right to purchase the land at the original valuation. Next came the 999 years' 'lease. Just why the term was made 999 years the speaker could not say. It was a 1000 years lease less one year—a period more than half the Christian era. One of the principal planks of the present Government's land policy was the nonalienation of the lands of the colonyretaining the land of the State for the benefit of the State. With regard to the history of the 999 years' lease, that tenure was a compromise between the freeholder arid the land nationalises li was a kind of bastard tenure, and was brought about in this way: There were the two political schools in the colony at the time this lease was put on tho Statute Book—the freeholder on one side, leaseholder on the other, and a compromise had to be effected. The freeholder practically held his weapon at the Government's head and said, "Give us tho freehold or we fire." On tho other side, there stood the leaseholder, and he said, "If you part with the land we fire.'-' The Government was in a quandary between the two. They came to the nationaliser and said,' '''Will you bo satisfied if we promiso not to part with the freehold, — will you trust us with regard to the leasehold?" The nationaliser said, "Yes." Then tho Government went to the -freeholder on the other side of the 'fence and said, "We know you have strong sentiments on this question. We 'iviiow you are wedded to this title. We want to satisfy you, but there is a man on the other side of the fence. Will you bo satisfied if we give you a 999 years' tenure right through the period? Will you be satisfied with that?" The

former said, "Decidedly yes, we'll be just as satisfied as if we had the freehold." So the compromise was effected, and the land boom began. The farmers began to fell the bush and grass the land, produce wool, mutton, butter, and so forth. Then the leaseholder became dissatisfied, and began his agitation with the Government. He said, "Why, these people have got this land practically for ever; there's no revaluation ; you might as well give them tho freehold." The class of farmer who held a lease under that particular tenure had become alarmed. The man who took up the freehold was satisfied; he felt secure. The man working under the right to purchase tenure was satisfied, but the other felt that his tenure was being menaced. Because why? Because the Government had brought down a Fair Rent Bill, and according to the highest legal authority in the colony that Bill included every one of the 999 years leaseholders. In addition to the menace of this Fair Rent Bill, there was also the menaco of a political organisation, one "of tho planks of whose platform was that in future no lands should be sold; that all future tenures should have a provision for revaluation.

Mr. Bassett at this point gave the land nationalises every credit for straightforwardness and sincerity. With regard to the holders of 999 lease (who numbered about 1000), the effect of the Bill would be that each would be allowed to occupy to the end of his life, but when he. died the Goverrment would have power to re-value the land. See how iniquitous that would be, said Mr. Bassett. Here were two men. Both had held their farms for ten years, and both had improved it, and done nil the country wanted. One of the men died, and left his family to carry on that farm. The State came in at once and re-valued the land. The family might be struggling against great difficulties, yet the valuation might be raised twice or thrice. Tlio other man might live 20 or 30 years, yet his valuation would remain as originally fixed. This was not fair. Should a ihan sell his lease .the land was re-valued. The question resolved itself into this: The Government had entered into a solemn compact with 1000 farmers, and was the country going to break faith with those people? That was the question that would be settled in a short time. If the Government was going to break faith and practically cancel these leases and make them subject to periodical revaluation, it would give this country a reputation which it would be ashamed of in a short time. (Applause.) Mr. Bassett was sure that the sense of justice and fair play in the people of 'this colony would never consent to such a thing being dene. These farmers were now asking that they should be put on the same footing as those men who took up their land on the 25 years' tenure. Under thait tenure the rent paid was 5 per cent, on the capital value at the time it was taken up. 'The rent on the 999 years' tenure Avas 4 per cent, on the capital value at the time it was taken up. The 999 years men said, "Put us on the same footing as the men who hold their land for 25 years with right of purchase. We are willing to pay the extra 1 per cent, between what we are paying and what, we should have paid had we taken the other tenure, plus compound interest on that amount up to the time we converted into the freehold." Was that a fair request? There was one farmer under the 25 years' tenure, and there was another under the 999 years' lease. The 25 years' man had the right to purchase, and there was no talk of interfering with him. The 999 years' man had the fear of his lease, being broken unless he was prepared to pay the increased rent. He had asked to bo placed on the same terms as his neighbour. Mr. Bassett said he was not prepared to say exactly what he would advocate with regard to the terms upon which these tenants should be allowed to convert their leases into freehold. They should be allowed «to convert on the basis of present valuation. He admitted that there were difficulties in the way, because many of the leases had changed hands, and many of tha purchasers had paid a handsome premium, and if the Government were to value that land to-day and call on the people to pay the capita' value, those men would be paying twice for their land. This position had become alarming to' the present Government. At Christchurch the other day Mr. Seddon said he had passed through a district. occupied by these farmers, and they were demanding the freehold. The Government were concerned because they could see these farmers meant business. ,J nstea<* °i putting their backs to the wall and standing firm to the principles they professed, viz., the non-alienation of the public estate, and saying emphatically to the people, "We will not give you this," what had they done? Appointed a Commission which had cost between £15.000 and £20,000, and Mr. Bassett said without hesitation that that money had practically been thrown away. There was absolutely no need for this Commission, as the Government could have obtained all the information from its officials and the leaseholders by simply communicating with them by post. £200 or £300 would have sufficed. But that did not suit the Government's policy. Instead of formulating a policy on the report brought down, the Government had thrown it on the floor of the House. The Premier had noit dared to adopt it. Ho was afraid to do it. He had been challenged by the Leader .of the Opposition" to bring down a clear-cut policy. He had been challenged to make a no-confidence motion of it, but he had not dared to do it. At the present time Mr. Seddon was making at every function some reference to the doctrine of "the land for the people." He called upon the people to stand by the old flag, and to see that no injustice was done to the country, and Mr. Bassett believed that at the same time Mr. Seddon was secretly praying every iright and day that the freehold might to granted. (Laughter.) Mr. Bassett said he -was not a prophet, but he be-, lieved that before the Premier would allow the House to rise the demand of thoso people would be granted. Mr. Seddon spoke a great deail about the unearned increment attaching to these lands. It had been said that to grant the freehold to the leaseholders Avould bo to make'them a-present of an enormous sum of money. (Hear, hear.) '•' 'Hear, hear,' " says some," continued Mr. Bassett. "I defy anyone to prove that it will be to give these people a solitary shilling. I will prove that the bargain is on the side ot the State." Mr. Bassett went on to say that the leaseholder would be satisfied if he wens not menaced on all sides. The Premier had saidjthe unearned increment would amount to from one million to three millions sterling. With regard to that, the Land"Commission s report should be sufficient answer. The Premier should be more careful about his figures whei the facts were supplied by his own officers. (To be concluded in our next issue.)