LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2774, 18 May 1916, Page 6

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

LAND FOR RETURNED SOLDIERS. Sir,—lt is stated that the Government is about to introduce a Bill with a viewto provide land for the settlement of returned soldiers. By this measure it is proposed to take forcibly the land required, at land tax valuation, and to compensate the expropriated owners by means of Government bonds at per cent., having a currency of 5 to 10 years. May I point out what seems to me to be the injustice of this measure? Take the case of a farm of 1000 acres, bought two years ago at JCIO per acre. The farmer, with a family of chiMren, whom he has to educate and start in life, invested his capital because ho calculated to make 10 per cent, on his investment. He oould have got 5 to 6 per cent, for his money by buying shares in any sound company, but being a farmer by profession lie preferred to invest in a farm. _ By tho proposed measure ho may find himself turned out of his farm, and his income reduced from .£IOOO a year to .£450. In addition to this he finds that the bonds he receives in compensation are not convertible into cash, so that not only is his income reduced by more than half, but.he is absolutely prevented from investing his capital in another farm or in any other remunerative concern. ■ It may be said that this measure is not intended to apply to small or mediumsized holdings, but only to large estates; but surely if the principle is unjust in & small case it will also be unjust in a large one. Everyone nowadays accepts the principle that large holdings of land are detrimental to the community, and should be discouraged, and that small holdings are a tower of strength to the State. But large landholders made their investments lawfully, relying on the integrity and honour of the State. . The policy may have been a bad one, but that is the fault of past legislation, end not that of the present owners. Everyone will admit that it may be necessary for ' the State to, expropriate the owners of any land required for public purposes, but to give those owners less than the fair valuation would be a breach of faith and an act of spoliation.

Finally since land is required for the settlement of returned soldiers, it is quit® legitimate for the State to resume the i'eesimple of those areas which it may require; but the only fair way to deal .vritli the owners iB to pay them in cash, according to land tax valuation. If the payment be paid in Government bonds, which bear a loiv rate of interest, and are not immediately convertible into cash, it cannot be said that a fair compensation has been made. Some may hold that a 4} per cent. State bond is such a good security as to compensate for the low interest ; but it is aurely an arbitrary proceeding to force men to invest in such security against their will, and when they can get, better interest ouside. Why cannot the Government issue another loan at 4i per cent.,' and apply the proceeds to tho purchase of tho required , land, and compensate the present owners by a cash payment? That, surely, is the only fair way; but to force citizens to lend capital to tho State at a low rate of iricerest, as Charles I did with his iniquitous system of benevolences, is not a system worthy of a country which boasts of being in the van of civilisation. It would not be surprising to find such methods of spoliation in some Central American Republic, buA even Germany would, repudiate such a lack of political honesty, and such an act of tyranny—l am, etc., BANDOLIER. May 10, 1918.