OPINION IN THE LOBBY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 170, 18 July 1907, Page 3

OPINION IN THE LOBBY.

RADICALS DISAPPOINTED A>T3 L\N

SETTLED.

COUXTKY PARTY JTBILAXT.

At last there is something important to discuss in the lobbies, and certainly th° most is being made of the opportunity" Sufficient of the land policy was indicated in the Financial Statement to cause jubilation in the ranks of the country party and corresponding disappointment amon~<* the Radical section of the Government party. Several strong leaseholders say they have been sold by the Government and it is probable that a meeting of the Radical members of the House will be held to consider their position. It is a question whether they will give any support to the proposals as they now stand, for, as one of them remarked, '"It is no' use disguising the fact that it was a compromise, by which the Government saved the face of the Liberal freeholder and went back \ipou its clear pledges, in connection with the first bill."

The Radical section objects to the granting of the freehold to any Crown tenants or starting the limitation proposals at £40,000 instead of £L 5.000. as at first proposed. It is pointed out, that by the exclusion of homestead sites from the taxable area, the limitation proposals do not really begin until £50.000 unimproved value is reached. They are ax, a loss to know- why. when wool and mutton are at their highest and the position of the farmer most prosperous, the sheen tax should be abolished, though the liberal Government, in spite of low wanes ajid increased cost of living- in the towns sticks to the fiour tax.

A country optional freeholder who supports the Government states that the country party is-very well satisfied with the land proposals, which will meet generally with their support, though." he added, '• W e reserve the right to 'reduce the arear>of endowmeait somewhat. Huje areas-of native lands will eventually be put on the market by auction in the North." he- continued, "and that is where theiconcession comes in." fc A. BAD 'BACKLDOWSC." A Liberal freeholder-echoes the opinion of a iarge-fsection of the House in asking why the Government shouid drop its limitation proposals, approved as they were by both farmers and city people. """Heaven only knows why," he said. "Tmt Ministers admit it is gone." The new limftatioiuinay be-said to commence limitation -became prohibitive, moreover, as no stage, not even when the enormous value "of £200,000 is reached, does the. proposed tax become prohibitive. A man holding £200.000 worth of land is to pay £oOCO tax. Supposing bis profits from the land are about six par cent on the value—a very moderate estimate in many cases—the man's income is £ r2.000. His land tax will leave him £7000. or about 3i per cent on his valuation. A man who has the land hunger will hold every acre under those conditions," concluded the member. i "A BAD BREAKDOWN." The words of the heading above, constitute the commencement of a strong condemnation by the "Evening Post" of the Government's new attitude in regard to the land probJem. The " Post" sajHai. — "-Ptter disappointment will, we

rare sine, be the general feeling among 'those who hoped most from last year's Land BUI, as they read the feeble substitutes which are provided for several of its cardinal and most valuable provisions." Especially does the leader -writer find fault -with the mildness of the limitation proposals, and he concludes: "We may he thankful that something remains of last year's programme, but there is certainly little left to excite the enthusiasm of the land reformer.