THE WAIMATE ADVERTISER. TUESDAY, AUGUST 1,1899.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume II, Issue 28, 1 August 1899, Page 2

THE WAIMATE ADVERTISER. TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1899.

The next step after taxing large estates to the " bursting up point, and the Slate purchase of them at suitable pi'ices, is of course to burst up smill estates. This the Government have already attempted to do In their Land for Settlements Act Amendment just introduced, but which has emerged emasculated by the Opposition. The original gave the Minister power — for the purpose of establishing workmen's houses or villages — to take land by, purchase or by cojnpul,sion within a borough or within five miles bi its boundary, the* aggregate for one year not' to exceed 100 acres in ' extent " 'iir any dne locality* The owner' could re-

retain only his house and garden' to the extent oP five acres. The principle of the- Act is good' enough, and to establish such homes-in fact model dwellings snch as the London County Council have in many case? done with partial success for purposes of better sanitation-is worthy of all praise. With the experience of the large manufacturing towns of England before us, we in this l cofuntry, if we refused to move in this direction, would be ignoring a guide for our legislative conduct that would be unjustifiable. Of: the rise in price of land in the vicinity of growing towns, and of the consequent crushing of men, earning 20 or ,'3O shillings a week, with wives and families, into dark alleys, into sharing ] ouses with other equally poor people, with the filth, overcrowding, want of ventilation, the growth of criminals and drunkards, and the evils of slum land in all its misery and wretchedness, there is no reason to write here. Those who have read "In His Steps" by Mr Sheldon, will recognise in the Rectangle and drinking saloon, the kind of thing we mean. Mr Sheldon's moral is to shut up the saloon and in this manner prevent the evils of drink, and we say abolish the rectangle, and the evils of the saloon will diminish to a vanishing point. Each is a cause, and also an effect. Looked at in this light, who will be hardy enough to stand up and say that no provision should be made in this country to prevent such disastrous results to our town populations ! We hope to prevent what London and the large provincial cities are trying to cure.' Now the Bill under discussion is just such an attempt — but that is no reason why it sho-uld be a means of imposing hardships on those who happßn to own land adjacent to boroughs. The authority to buy areas to 100 acres in 'or within five miles' of a boreugh I seems to give undue latitude to those in power, while the compulsory clauses are surely unnecessaiy if suitable land can be obtained without compulsion. Now the Opposition, we think, with fairness to the individual owner, has had inserted in the Bill that not merely the market value of land so taken should be paid, but that any loss of business caused thereby should be fully compensated. It was pointed out that if, say, a dairyman's land be annexed and market valiie of the land only returned to him, he would be deprived of hfs whole means of livejinqojl and his land in additiofr. Again, no compulsion can no\^ be used unless the Land Purchase Board have by public tender and other means exhausted every other metho.d of obtaining land. i for such purposes. Xne. full, .as i " ' -" \

introduced by Mr Hall- Jones— •'. who left the debating part to th^ Premier — applied to all b'orous;h^ and town districts, but it YfasM agreed to restrict the measure to boroughs of 15,000 inhabitant?^ and within 5 miles was increased.'to 15, and the area retainable by [ the owner is increased from 5 to ; 10 acres within a boron afb, aW? 50 acres outside one. The Bill ' has undoubtedly been much mv proved by the criticism it received, and the alterations made ', in it are an apt illustration of how an Opposition may be of great service. The Opposition, if in power, might have been on the* benches many years longer before 1 ' they ettempted to deal with this question. The present Government's policy is in many ways good and progressive, but without ' the check of the other party, we are afraid some very crude, unjust, and what is worse, unworkable measures would find their' >' way into the Statute book. In these changes of method, nothing is' more essential for success than that the me#ns by which they are brought about should be reasonable, not painful and coercive, but should be fair an r l just. By this means criticism of the measures is disarmed, and as they work smoothly they become peimanent. If the contrary result is produced they defeat — by calling for reversal — the very ends for which they are introduced. Parliament has added an excellent law to the Statutes of this colony. It Avill suffice for our needs for many years.