THE LAND PROBLEM.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1544, 13 September 1912, Page 8

THE LAND PROBLEM.

. FARMERS' POINT OF VIEW. WHAT SINGLE TAX WOULD MEAN (By Telegraph.—Press A6sociatibn.) Christchurch, September 11. A special meeting of tho North Canter bury Executive of the New Zealani Farmers' Union was held to-day, Mr. G Sheat being in the chair. About twent; members wore present. Mr. C. H. Ensor said his idea in get ting the meeting together was to try ant get the Farmers' Union to formulate i laud policy, and to endeavour to combs erroneous doctriues being promulgated bj various bodies and cranks. Supporters o: policies favoured by tho United Laboui party, the land nationalises, and single taxers had all been very active in publish ing their ideas, and gradually these idea: had soaked iuto the general community Thftso ideas and policies might bo all verj well for people who held no land, bul were very bad for the unfortunates wlu did. The basis of the land policy shouli bo to make tho land produce to its lit most capacity, and he did not think th( confiscatory tax proposed by the Labom people would have the desired effect, 01 make land produce more. The basis whicli he thought farmers should build upon was that any land that was being made to produce, its utmost should not be subjected to a penal tax, but he would like to make it clear that he did not object fc being saddled with a fair and just proportion of the taxes of the Dominion. "Singled Out For Oppression." Tho unfortunate, farmer was tho mnn who was singled out for oppression. There was no talk of limiting the business of banker, or butcher, or baker. They could go on and build up their business to a size only limited by their energy and anterprise/ but tho fanner waS interfered ivitli on every possible occasion. At tho same time he would make it clear that he had no sympathy with the individual who held large areas of land in unproductiveness, or who held for speculative purpose*. Hβ would be willing that this :loss should be dealt with severely. But it ras monstrous that the scientific and up-to-date farmer, who was working his land to as good advantage as if it were split up into small farms should be harassed. There was also the question of breeders pf stud stock and growers, and introiucers of better qualities of grain and )thor crops. These men spent time ( and money ia introducing valuable animals for which thousands of pounds were paid, [f by modern methods and an up-to-date •ysteni of management or culture, a farm was made to produce .£SOO instead of',£3oo its capital value naturally was increased. Surely, this increased.value legitimately belonged to the man who, by foresight and capability, made the increase. He contended that a capable and scientific farmer 'should not be ""tied <lown .to any particular area, provided ho was making the most of the land, and any future land legislation should be based ipon was this as a foundation. What mem>ers of the union ehouid encourage was prirate enterprise, or rather freedom of encerprise. The old method of leaning on the State and trusting to it to conduct tho settlement of the country had not proved all that was expected of it. He maintained that a Government system of leasehold tenure was wasteful and selfish. Wasteful because it needed a continual flow of 'borrowed money, and selfish because all classes of land-seekers were not treated alike. The , speaker disapproved lease-in-perpetuity, as he said it ivas wrong on the face of it to attempt to legislate, for 1000 years ahead. The rsnewabla lease was different only in degree. Freehold tenure was one in which great sense- of security was paramount, and the freeholder made the land his bank »nd was self-supporting. lie did not believe that the system of valuing sections and then balloting for them could be done away with altogether, but ot least intending settlers should be practical farmers. The speaker dilated on the evils Df absenteeism, and hoped that compulsory residential clauses would nevor bo done away with. Any conversion of leasehold to freehold should be at original valuation, bocauso the State's interest in iiny !ea«e-in-perpetuity was nil. Somo alterations in question of land taxation were needed, and small holders wero at present unduly burdened. Any estate for subdivision should have a practical farmer with the surveyor to form boundiry lines. Single Tax, Mr. D. Jones, speaking in reference to statements made by Professor Mills in regard to millions of acres which he al.eged were lying untouched, over-grown )y weeds and neglected by owners, said ;mit those allegations were quito untrue, md nindo to inflame public opinion. They vore not fair criticism. The speaker went m to point out by means of on illnstra:ion what single tax would mean. Ho ;ook the case of 200 acres at £30 per acre >r ,£GOOO, improvements at .f 5 per acre £1000, ami laad value of .£SOOO. A mort;age of =E3OOO would be ,£l5O per year; md ,£SOOO 'and value at 5 per cent, would >e .£250. The farmer's rent would thereore bo .£4OO per year, or, in other words, io would be paying JE-10 peT year for ,£3OO s'orth of land. That was wliut a section )f the United Labour party was arlvoeatng. Under that system they would not ;et an- acre of unimproved land taken lp in New Zealand in a century. It was said that with laud there was a com-nunity-creafed value, but it had lot been realised that the same remark ' applied to everything else. It n-as so with the labourer, draper, and schoolmaster. Why was Professor Mills n an exceedingly good position? If there ivere no people in Ne\v Zealand he would iave to scratch for a living just tho arae as anyone else. Farmers wanted to Irive home tho fact that there was com-nuuity-created value in industries and manufactures. They should not allow the :hing to go by default. The whole land )f New Zealand had been sold for cash, md the money had passed into the Treasury, and had now gone into unimproved values. The money farmers paid per hand was just as much an improvenent as anything elee. In-answer to a question, Mr. Jones aid that if single tax -, came into opera;ion, the land would probably revert to;he Crown. It would be of no use to ;he individual. It would destroy tho vhole value of tho land to the owner. The Ballot System, -. , Mr. S. Weld said there was something srong with the present, system of ballotng, and they should have a system under vliieh bona-fido settlers secured the land, it present the money-hungry swarmed 'ound ballots, not the land-hungrv. Mr. ,T. W. Patchett asked Mr." Ensorf he would allow those given cottages >n estates to retain an amount of land. Mr. EiiFor said that if they could deriso a scheme under which'the worker iould get an option over tho cottage ami ivo acres of laud, there would he n big raprovemeut in conditions. Something iras necessary to divert tho influx into ;hc towns. Mr. Weld said that he thoroughly apjroved of Mr. Ensor's scheme. The sys- ;<™ of running to the town for men was nconvenient and expensive for farmers— ;hev never knew whom thev were getting. Mr. Sheat said that he had told the jO.;t-of-living Commission that farmers .ranted workers' homes all over the coun:rv. not necessarily village settlement?. Mr. Patchett spike of the landlord sys;em obtaining in Emrland. They did not vant that in N-ow Zealand. They wanted 'rechold for everyone, and they should idvocato it vigorously. Mr. Sheat. said that he knew of in. itanccs where money voted to assist sct■lcrVin the country had been expended in )uildine un businesses in the city. Mr. J. B-. Cullen said that (hero was »mo danger in the workers.' homos syo*m, as things might ba overdone, 'as! vas the m? 9 many vears ago. He hcieved in farmers building houses for the ncn they employed all the year round. Mr. Sheat said he did not think the ysteni advocated by Mr. Ensor'would be iverdoiie. On the suggestion of Mr. A. J. Bell, a lommittee, ronsistins of the president. \ros<=i\s. C. n. Ensor. G. Gardner, and 3. Jones, was appointed to formulate n and policy for the union, and submit it o n subsequent meeting. Mr. E. Evans said the Government ounht o assist a man to build a house in the' louutry just as they assisted a man in ;he town. Tf they wriufod- men *J> ■/omn iuto l.he country (.hey inurt bo urelared to offer them a piece nf land limy :ouM rail their, own. Tte president, said that , the. diicns<ioii ;ad bew. a roost .urofitable one,' jud th?j-

had discussed eome important questions. Ho agreed that those who asMsted otliors lo get on the land wero doing good service, for their country. They must not differentiate, say, "because you havo boon mi laud you only shall go iu for land ballot." Ho agreed with Mr. Massoy that they should give .1 square deal to everybody. (Applause,) x