UNEARNED INCREMENT, ETC.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 2556, 27 November 1888, Page 2

UNEARNED INCREMENT, ETC.

to the editor. Sir, —If I am not occupying too much of your valuable space, I shall be glad if you will give me room to reply to " Harapipi's" last letters. In the place X am very sorry ho did not take more time before replying to my last letter, and to have studied the question of the unearned increment more deeply, for I feel sure if ho had doue so ho would have come to a different conclusion, as I notice signs of Ilia submission to the teachings of the philosophers and loading men of thought whom I named, for he admits that their teachings are right in the abstract. So far so good ; this shows ha is travelling with the march of progress. I am inclined to think ho is not so much of a Tory as he tries to persuade himself he is. Further, he says he is seokiiig information, this is another good sign for it conclusively, shows that he is looking to the future, and not to the past, and this points Jo the fact that a little more light is ail-that is necessary to make him a land Rationalizer. It is too large a question to be dealt with by newspaper letters, but if he will get Ilency George's "Progress and Poverty" or his "Social Problems " and study them seriously as a student seeking knowledge and not with preconceived opinions, I have very little doubt as to the result. He will therein find that land is not the same as other property, no more than human beings are, and as they were once considered to be, by the majority of Christendom. The late Professor Cairns distinctly pointed out many years ago in an able article in the Fortnightly Review, that destitution and pauperism, reducing the bulk of the population to the verv lowest state of existence, are in short the inevitable result which' cannot but happen in the great majority of all societies now existing upon the earth, where land is given up to be dealt with as an article of commerce. This I think ought to be evident to any thinking and unselfish man. Land, especially in cities, gtows in value without any effort or exertion on the part of its possessors. I say it is not the case with a business or a farm, it must be watched and guided by a skilful mind to make it a success, and it is a well-known fact that with all their ability and attention upwards of ninety per cent, of busines? people fail, and it is with difficulty and strict economy that very many of tho farmers are able to keep their heads above the water. Now all the great reforms that have taken place, were once only abstract theories, but by the indomnitable perserver.vnce of the few they have become realities. It is such men as "Harapipi" who see the truth of those tlienriei, but from considerations of expediency do all they can to prevent tfiem coining into operation, that keep back the dawn of brighter and better dayß for the toilers. . If we see a system in operation that is an injustice to the masses no matter however hoary it may be with age, it is the duty of every right thinking man to do all that in him lies to crush it out. To my mind the very foundation upon which our whole system is built is unjust, viz., the private ownership of land. If lam right, then all that follows must be more or less unjust, for it is impossible to build good Jaws and institutions upon a bad foundation. Land is the basis upon which our whole existence depends. Ralph Waldo Emerson says: "While another man has no laud, my title to mine, your title to yours is vitiated." He wants to know if I think he is a fool. I don't; but I do think his ideas want maturing and turning into another groove, for I am of opinion that he reasons from wrong premises ;if so, then his conclusions,are bound to be wrong. He says that if the land boconies the property of the State, why not every other kind of property. I think there is not very much analogy. Land is limited and cannot bo moved about, while nearly every other kind of property can. Land becomes valuable by being surrounded by a large population. This is not the case with other property, for it often makes it cheaper, because labour can be got: for less cost. A house or business premises can be built for less in a town than in tho couutry. Again, if the land was nationalised, and it was found that it brought prosperity to the people, I don't see any reason why we should not go a step further if it would be the means of further increasing the general prosperity, i because the wealth that is teeming around us is the joint production of the masses, and each has a right to the rosult of his own productions, but our present systems enable the few to exploit the industry of" the many. " Harapipi" is dreaming surely, when he talks about a thousand years hence these ideas may be in operation, for the ground is now being prepared and the seed is being sown, some falling in good ground, where they soon fructify and bring forth fruit, while some fall in poor ground requiring plenty of manure. The sowers, the seed, and the prepared ground • are becoming more plentiful, and the fruit that lias already been gathered is an incentive for us to go on in the good work of trying to save the masse." from a state bordering or serfdom and slavery. All good men are trying to do the Hame thing but by the old inetheds, which have proved to be failures. The time is now getting ripe for a new system to be tried, and to my mind there is no other feasible, but ! nationalising the land. "Harapipi," I am afraid, cannot- yet distinguish between that which is good seed, .'.nd that which is docks and sorrell. This has been the case with many iinen in all ages of the world, and I am afraid it is so with a great many n»w, but I am hopeful of him because ho wants to learn. lam sanguine that he will very soon become an ardent disciple, of one whom I hope in the near future will be looked upon as one of the greatest reformers the world ever produced. The Rev. Pentecost, of New York, says that "progress and poverty" is the next best book to the New Testament.—Yours. &c., Elector.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —Your correspondents " Harapipi".and " Electorare having a few passes over Protection, and the unearned increment. With due respect to both writers, I would, with your permission, take a somewhat higher ground, and respectfully submit, that any policy, whether national or individual, based upon such selfish motives as Protection, undoubtedly is, is necessarily a false one, and that prosperity upon such a foundation, though it may advance in a most startling manner, is but fictitious, and must, in a comparatively brief period, crumble to pieces upon the ground, as " Thatcher" said of the Thames shares They went up like a rocket, But they came down like a. stick. And, further, I, and I feel sure many others, look forward (though it may favour somewhat of the millenuim) to the time when thore will be universal 'Free trade between all the Australasian colonies, and the spectacle at present afforded by;such colonies as Queensland and New * Zealand, adapted as each one is by Nature for the production of a totally different class of human necessaries, yet imposing heavy and . almost prohibitive tariffs upon each others' goods, will be no longer possible. It may be argued that

the necessities of the casß, particularly in our own debt-laden land, require that a large amount of revenue be raised to honestly pay our way, and the Customs offers the readiest means of obtaining- it. This may be so, but it Speaks little for the

wisdom and statesmanship of those "who rule the destinies of the Australasian colonies, that they cannot devise a more equitable and rational means of raising revenue, than by hampering and restricting the natural industries of the several colonies, causing among other ill effects a feeling of bitterness between the colonists, and constituting, as you have frequently pointed out, the greatest obstacle to Colonial Federation. The sooner we abandon Protection as an agent for better times, tba less time we shall lose in a fruitless chose j for when critically examined, it' will found, after all, anly to be a mora favouflPb, able'name for the principle of getting on in ■ the world by trampling upon our neighbours neolcp. To those,-und no doubt tney are many who still regard Protection asths ■panacea for all our troubles, I would respectfully recommend to their attentiou, an admirable note,-which appeared in your columns some little time past, over the signature of "R. \V. Roche" which briefly dealt with Protection as applied to New Zealand, and exposed some of its fallacies in a very clear and simple manner.—Your* respectfully, ' E. C. Shepherd.