SINGLE TAX AND LAND LAWS.

Evening Post, Volume LXIII, Issue 87, 12 April 1902, Page 7

SINGLE TAX AND LAND LAWS.

•SO TBS EDITOR. Sir — Mr. O'Rogan'a effort to escape from the consequences of his previous illconsidered letter does not help his cause much. • His reply to my criticißm of what ho termed a "ridiculous logal fiction" ( is wholly irrovolant matter. The question is, does a "ridiculous logal fiction" exist and bar the "tenants of the Crown" from paying land tax? That is the point, and unless Mr. O'Regan makes it clear to your readers that such a "fiction" exists, he must fall on a point of law. Then he suggest* that I was uniortunate in attempting to disprove the accuracy of his figures in relation to the amount of "laud values" at stated periods. Seoing that I set down tho figures avuilublo in our offlciul records, Mr. O'Regan cannot accuse mo of romancing about tho facts, and it remains for him to show thut those records aro wrong — no doubt a big contract to undertake Thero ia just another feature of his iigures that voquiies remark. Ho admits that the figures which I quoted for tho year 18W8 are*quito correct, and he takes 110 exception to those quoted from the Budget (Speech of 1901 ; yet ho goes on to show that all his own previous figures and those quoted by mo are wrong. He quotes tigurcs stud to have been mado uso of by fciir Joseph Ward, which he alleges makes tne "values" up to £101,000,000 ; sio according to hia own figures he has made a mistake of £6,000,000 5 aild having said that tho figures quoted by me aio "quito correct" he has inadu out the case against himself at moro than £J.u,000,000. In my previous letter I a«ked Air. O Regan and tho Single Taxcrs to explain how it was possible for a millionaire to acquire 20 million acres of land iv New Zealand. His reply is both brief and aimplo. Ha says, "by" buying it." It might appear to some from this reply thai} if a millionaire cuine to New Zealand all he had to do was to plank down his cash and enter into possession of 20 million acres of freehold land. But the fact is that that amount of hind is not available. Sinco tho foundation of the colony 14,514,384 acres have been disporad of on the freehold tenure, and somewhere about 500,000 of this bus been purcluvcd under tho Land for Hettlement Act. So th.it the amount of freehold land held by private owners Is, in round numbers, 14,000,000 acres. Our land laws make- it quite cloar that no one person ciin apply for more than 2000 acres of Crown lands with a right to purchase the freehold. Largo aieas certainly are held under various tenures, with a right 'to purchase, but such cannot be considered in this connexion. They aro so hedged with conditions that owners of 2000 acres and over cannot apply for a transfer for any of this land. However, I am satUiied to M-ait until Air. O'Regan studies our present land laws as carefully as he has studied the theory of the single tax. Then he will very likely agrco with me whon I say that the late Sir John M'Konzio left on our Statute Books us complote a set of working measures for land reform as is the theory of einglo tax complete. And to test this conclusion arrived at by me, let Mr. O'Regau and his band of "Single Taxers" specify clearly a few of their complaints, una I will endeavour to show that our present laws provide an effective remedy.-rl am, etc., ALEX. REUSE. Pahiatua, 10th -tpril, 1902.