PLAIN ROBBERY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 921, 14 September 1910, Page 4

PLAIN ROBBERY.

The compulsory leasing clauses of the Lan d Bill have met with such condemnation' -and on so many good grounds : that,it-is almost a- work of supererogation to , direct attention to any more of the injustices imposed " under this.. vicious scheme. Yet' it is'.just as well that the public should bo made aware of the full lengths to which the Ward Administration is prepared to'go in its".: reckless: .'disregard- of common sense: and common justice. We have on ! preyious occasions shown that the Bill proposes to compulsorily rent the lands of the larger landholders of ..the (Dominion at a quite .inadequate rental;,that, the capital of the owners evicted from their holdings will be locked up for at least, ten. years and the ;. owners crippled thereby and prevented ,froin embarking on-any new enterprise in substitution for that from which; they : have 1 been_:forcibly displaced; 'that, no provision made ; for remitting the penal | taxation imposed un der : the graduated land tax despite the fact.that the owner is, to all .intents and purposes, dispossessed of' the'; land, on,,which. the .'taxation: is: collected; We have pointed out the rank/.injustice; : . disnv. gard for . the canons of commercial morality displayed,in these proposals. But they are capped by a .stillVfurther injustice which amounts to nothing more or less than thb robbery of the' owner by tho .Statu, of a substantial portion of his capital, in the event of the purchase of the land leased ,under the purchasing clauses of the Bill. So that there can be no misunderstanding on the point., we quote the clauses, relating to the matter. Sub-section 6 of Clause 40 reads as follows: ;

; Tho price to be paid by the Governor for tlie fee'simple of the said land-shall,' in. the absence, of agreement between theowner and the Minister, be a sum equivalent to the capitalised value of the rent (calculated at 5 per centum) reserved in the, lease' or renewal thereof; ; f To fully appreciate what this means it is necessary to quote Sub-sectioii B, Clause 48: . , •••• '. The rent shall be determined b.v tho Court, but shall not exceed a sum equivalent'to 4J'per centum of. the .'value' of the' land/ including all. improvements, as de-' terniined by the Court. Thus we have the following'position :, The Grown decides to. compulsorily seize an estate on least;. A valuation Vis fixed -/arid' the Crown pays a rent not ekcceding per cent per annum on.that value. In ten years'; --time 'it decides, as provided by the Bill,, to purchase the estate. It then i ascertains the value of ,the property ,by. capitalising the rent .not on a basis of the <lj per cent which it has been paying, but on a basis of five per cent. . To make' clear' the iniquity' of this proposal it is only necessary to give au illustration of its working. _An. estate seized by the Government'is valued at £&Q,OUO. On this the State pays a rental which' must not exceed per cent per annum—that is £2250. Should it decide to'purchase this estate. it can do so under the provisions of the Bill on payment of. a sum. equivalent to the capitalised value of the rent (£2250). calculated: at 5 per cent; that is to say £45,000. Thus the. unfortunate owner; .after being victimised in the various other ways described in preceding articles, may have his land taken away from him altogether at a valuation actually less than that fixed by a competent Court of . Valuation ten years previously. Not content with inflicting ■ the hardships described, and depriv-. ,ing him.of any increment in value which may have taken place, he is actually robbed of'a substantial sum in cash equal to £5000 •in every £50,000' of the capital value of his land.