Evening Post. FRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 1904. THE LAND REFORM CAMPAIGN.

Evening Post, Volume LXVII, Issue 24, 29 January 1904, Page 4

Evening Post. FRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 1904. THE LAND REFORM CAMPAIGN.

Tho party of liuicl reform and tho Pre«« Association aro botli to be congratulated upon tho excellence of tho report which haw boon eupplied by tho latter of tho uiiuhh meeting held ir Christcliiu'ch yeatorday "for the purpose of protesting against tho passing of tho freehold from tho Suto." Tho country is also to bo congratulated, for while there arc fow more important eubjocto demanding tho consideration of the elector* ub tho present time, there is i>crhap» nono which Ims recently commanded !«w attoulion on tho part of tho public in proportion to ita importance. It was timo, therefore, that a, stir should bo nuido,' and tho Pitas Association hw whown a, proper recognition of tho significance of tho movement which was inaugurated at Christchurch last night by reporting tho various hpeakcra with a. fullness which it usually reserves for Ministers of tho Crown. The meeting is described jus "tho first of a, series to bo -conducted in tho country by tho Land Nationalisation Party." Wo are, glad that the party haa found a name, and that it« campaign which boa opened so auspiciously is ultimately to cover tho wholo country Vlb was stated by Mr. Laurenfioa, M.H.R., that "tlio principal centres of the South Island wcro to bo visited at once, and then the North Island, and next year it was hoped to organise a campaign that would reach every village and hamlet in New Zealand." Mr. Laurcnson, by tho way, whose whole-souled allegianco to tho Government has disappointed tho hope** founded on his early declarations of independence, was nmong tho most uncompromising of tho speakers at lost night's meeting, and ho made it sufficiently plain that on this great question, at any rato, ho would rise superior to all party tica and catch-words. But it is noticeablo that with this exception tho speakere did not includo any thoroughgoing adherent of either of tho great political parties. Mr. Tiuincr counts as a Government supporter, but his attitude to his leaders lms always been one of very candid friendship, and no party man has over claimed and, exercised a greater moiuturo of independence. Tho other three M.H.R.'s — Messrs, Taylor, Ell, and Fowlds — aro already in open revolt, and, though with no leanings to tho Opposition proper, aro nover likely to bo reconciled to a Scddonian regime. Is the land question about to givo birth and permanence to a new political party which may supersede the sham Liberalism of the Government party and the honest Consorvatiam of their opponents by a programme at onco clean and progressive If The question im to whom they were fighting was variously answered by difforent speakers at last night's meeting. Mr. Ell blamed the Opposition, Mr. iA-vurenson the money-lender, and Mr. G. W. Russell the Premier. Wo do not think that there is much in Mr. Laurenson's theory ; tho borrower who would bo glad to have a mortgageable aosot is probably a good deal woro responsible than tho lender, Butfthe seemingly contradictory explanations of Messrs. lill and Russell contain about a half-truth etich. Tho demand of tho Fanners' Union for tho freehold is avowedly backed by the Opposition, but there would bo little danger in it were it not for the unprincipled opportunism of the Premier. His declaration at Ilokilika conclusively proves that ho i» coming down ,on tho Fanners' Union side of tho fence, unless* somebody convinces him that there aro more voles on tho other. Tho enthusiasm and unanimity of the land' reformers' first mooting will, therefore, bo bettor medioino for him than tho excellence of their arguments, and by the time other parts of tho colony have spoken' Out as clearly as Christchurch, his ie-con version to tho doctrines which he had continued all the time to profeis will be complete. To those who *tud.v arAumeut* rather .than

votes, tho speakers also supplied some oxcelluni mnteriul. Mr. Taylor especially appears to have been in excellent form, and his interesting excursion into the history of early Jew i?li uud Roman land tenure comes aa a refreshing novolty from one whose mind usuully heems too filrenuously set upon tho futuro lo pay Millicient heed to the lebbons of tho rm.st. Bui for the man who despises ancient hi.slory a single modern iiusUince cited by Mr. Taylor -will cany more weiglit — viz., the faul that " tho Fluxbourno K»tnto, which in tho early sixties was *old at 5s an acre, was now vulucd for (Government resumption til £5 an acre." 110 was surely right in urging that after allowing liberally for (he valuo of tho owner's improvement. 1 * thcro viui a very wide margin which represented a sheer* gratuity to tho owner and a fiheer loss to the Stato. Mr. Laurcnson hinted the position more generally as follows :—": — " During tlie year ending 31sfc Almch last the colony had sold Crown lands with tho right of puiehaso for cash, and under the lGa&e-in-per-petuity .system to the extent of 213,000 acres at an average price of 12s OJd per •acre. During the Mime period the State had repurchased 152,000 acres at an aver'ago price of £3 13s 5d." This procedure Mr. Latucnson described ns " madder than tho madness of the ' Jubilee Plunger ' " ; and Mr. Tanner pointcdjout that the actual valuo of tho CroAvn lands sold for cash during the lost twelve years amounted to over a million pounds, and that " tin 1 process was going on as morrily us ever." Mr. Fowlds, who has mado a special study of Dip tmbject, and would Tike to push the caso much further than thu modest demands of the present progiainnic, wa/s^ portly perhaps for the hitler reason, less convincing than the other speukpis. lie appears to have indulged a little too much in abstract and far-fetched argument. "Tho advocates of thu freehold woro inconsistent," ho said, "for if it was wrong for the State to lease the land, it was equally wrong for a privato individual to do the same." No «ane man could possibly contend that it was inherently jvrong for the Ktato to grant a lease, and all that the advocates of tho freehold riro actually uckiug'for is that CroAvn tenants shall have the optioi* of k-ase or purchase. Mr. Fowlds w a fairminded and level-headed man, and il is not like him to ppeml time on knocking down men of straw when there art moro substantial antagonists to be routed. An important service was rendered towards tho close of tho proceedings by Mr. G. W. Russell, who moved to add lo tho motion an amendment "That all lea.sw* in perpetuity granted in futuro should b6 subjected to periodical revaluations, and that all leases in perpetuity «hou!d be subjected to the land-tax." The idiocy of tho 999 years' lease without rt-valuation should be kept in tho very forefront of tho reformers' programme, and the meeting very properly adopted both motion and amendment without dissent. The campaign has mad© a wplcndid start, and we hone to sco no slackening till victory is achieved.