THE LAND QUESTION.

Press, Volume XL, Issue 5859, 24 June 1884, Page 3

THE LAND QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOR 0? TBS PBS&B. Sir, —The question of dealing with the land in New Zealand that is not profitably occupied is still prominent. That there Ie and will continue diversity of opinion e» this question is to be expected, and also desirable. If those who wish to form » healthy publio opinion on utiluiog the land of the colony would confine their observations to things as they exist in New Zealand, and leave out of the consideration all fads, such as nationalisation «f land, bursting up large estates, unearned increment, perpetual leasing by Government, the usages of the ancients aud the moderns, in dealing with lauds, and keep close to things as they exist or ought t©> exist, something sensible and tangible might be formulated. It is universally admitted that tbe opening of constructed railways and settlement on the land adjoining the railways so opened when constructed should go hand iv haul,the two are supposed to be inseparable. The Government, out of money borrowed, for which all are responsible, make the railways ostensibly to open up the country, anion the cultivation of the land is based the returns in traffic to pay the interest and working expenses of the railways when constructed and opened for traffic. This will be taken for granted. There are no densely populated cities or towns where large industries are carried on to supply traffic to railways in New Zealand. So that the traffic mainly depends on the useful occupation of the land through whioh the railways run. That the land through which railways run is directly enhanced in value will not be denied. The Government import this element as an important factor when assessing the value of land required for purposes «. making railways. Further, it is laid d.wn as a general principle that all land is directly greatly enhanced in value within five miles on each side of a railway opened for traffic, and, therefore, all land within such distance ought to be profitably occupied, both in the interest of population, the owners of the land, and the railways thus constructed and opened for traffic. If the land is not ia profitable occupation where the State has paid the money to make the railways the first fundamental principle is violated, no matter who may be the owner of the land through whioh the railway runs, viz., that settlement on the land should be simultaneous with the opening of a railway for traffic. In New Zealand there are 1400 miles of railway open for public convenience and traffic, and assuming that the land is directly benefited for five miles on each sido of the railway opened for traffic, it fellows that there is about 9,000,000 acres of land that ought to be in profitable occupation. Is there onethird of that quantity brought under sultivation ? Adjoining the railways opened certainly not, and hence the incubus. Can anything be more suicidal than to continue borrowing million after million of money to make railways, on which after they are made, there is nothing to carry. Bad management alone could not inflict the heavy burden that falls on tho taxpayer, if traffic in the shape of goods of any kind were ready to be carried when the railways are opened for traffic. Railways are expensive toys when oosstrncted merely for ornament. It is a moot question—lf the railways have opened up 9,000,000 acres of land, and little over three millions are under cultivatioa, why is this allowed, and who benefits by this great and flagrant injustice t Yours, &c, Hants Lion*.