FREEHOLD V. LEASEHOLD.

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 50, 27 August 1904, Page 9

FREEHOLD V. LEASEHOLD.

By P. J. O'REGAN.

(Concluded.) In tho first porrior of my article I showed that the presumed exemption of Crown leaseholds from land-tax, which the advocates of tho freehold use as an argu- , nient to support thoir contention, was entirely fallacious, the exemption disappearing when the natural increment brings the unimproved value of a holding to , over £500. Let ua see how the proposal to convert the Crown leases into freeholds would affect the ( co'.ony from a, revenue standpoint. According to tho Lands Report for 1903 (Table D, page V.) there are in this country 19,594 Crown tenants, and these pay an annunl rent of £448,380. Of thit* amount £83,204 ia collected under tho Land for Settlements Act, and is, therefore, not re-venue in the ordinary seme (Lands ' Report, 1903, page 194); but, deducting this amount, we had last year a revenue from Orown leases amounting to £360,1*5, and an idea may be formed of the potentiality of this asset when we bear in mind that last year's figures showed an advance on those of the previous year of £21,241. The,, great majority of the Oiown leaseholds, if tljey were freeholds, would pay absolutely nothing to the rovenue of the colony, for the obvious reason that they would nearly all come within the £500 exemption. The reader will appreciate this fact better if ho bears in mind that under a Crown lease there is no exemption from rent, but the exemption which I have endeavoured to make clear does apply under tho land tax ; and I am confident that the great mass of the electors will not lightly acquiesce in the underhand attempt now being made by a few large proprietors, under the specious pretext of allowing Crown tenants -the option of acquiring the freehold, to defraud us of our national estate and saddle us with additional taxation. But even if the exemption under the land tax were abolished, it would not be equivalent from a re"t>nue ' point of view to the leasing system. The ordinary land tax — leviable, subject to the exemption, up to an unimproved value of £5000— is only Id in the £, or less than half per cent. ; whereas in no case is the rent of a Crown lease less than 34 per cent., and it is often more, rebate being granted only in the case of punctual payments. Lest it may be objected tha,t I have classed all Crown tenants together, including many on whom it is not desired to confer the freehold, I would point out that if one class of tenant is allowed the option of acquiring the freehold, we cannot possibly refuse the sumo concession . to . all. But, omitting that argument, Mr. Birch and his friends will not deny that it is sought to allow the option to holders of leases-in-perpe-tuity, and the last year's Land Report shows that there are 6978 of these who contribute an annual rental to our common exchequer of £144,846. In order to allay the popular dislike to the aggregation of huge estates, the advocates of the freehold tell us that thoy want a, limitation of area. If that is so they had better call the particular tenure they "want by another name, for. a limited area of freehold is something quite new to English law. In reality there aro three estates of freehold — an estate, taili' an estate for life* and an estate in fee-simple. We need not discuss the two first: it is the fee-simple which our philanthropic' landowners are after. That tenure gives the nearest approach to absolute property in land •which the law of England allows a subject to hold, but the idea of fixing a legal limit to the area of a fee-simple estate is something decidedly new, and it would interest me very much to learn what assurance the Fanners' Union can 1 give us that the limitation wilh not be ultimately set aside. The history of our land laws for centuries past is a record of" the "most heartless swindling," and those who know it best will be the least disposed to yield one iota of the advance wo have made in this country towards the regaining of those community rights which, though they receive but 'small respect at the hands of the so-called Farmers' Union, are as immutable as they are sacred. - As a disciple of Henry George, I care little for the name or form of land tenure as long as the State gets the unearned increment. A fee-simple estate is perfectly unobjectionable from my point of view provided taxation is so adjusted that the rights of the public ore seenrod. The concession of the fee-simplo ,to Crown tenants would be, much less objectionable if it were not for the iand tax exemption, for once we levied a penny in the'£ land tax, we could increase it from time to time as we thought fit. But the demands of the Farmers' Union— l refuse to call it the demand of the tenants themselves is decidedly "strong." They want the option of buying the fee-simple, ' not at the present valun of the land, but at the value at tho time the tenant acquired the lease. .Then, while they hasten to assure | us that the land tax would apply to theJ iand, the real fact is that in consequence of the exemption, the land tax would practically not apply at all. I would be prepared to concede the option to acquire the fee-simple on conditions something like the following :— (1) The land to be bought at present value, payments to be spread over a number of years, and applied towards the extinction of the loans raised to purchase land for closer settlement; (2) the abolition of the £500 exemption under the land tax What would tho Farmers' Union say to these conditions! Of course, they.would scout them: they have not the slightest rognrd for the right of the rest of their fellow-citizens to the earth which, in the language of tho banquetting table, w called "the people's heritage." Of course, there are many other motives Dohind this demand of the Farmers' Union. I. think I can detect the trail of the money-lender in the path, for a fee-simple estate is necessarily , a better security ior loans than & lease. But apart from this phase. of the question, the points to which I wish' to direct the attention of those who read this article are plain and unmistakable. The agitation involves the potential loss of the handsome revenue whicli we now derive, from the Crown leases ; a loss in rovenue will ultimately spell increased taxation in some other direction, and most probably the mass of the people [ will be called upon to moke up the loss by increased taxes on the necessaries of daily existence. The demand of the tanners' Union, therefore, implies the destruction of common rights to tho land of our country, and the placing of taxation which according to every principle of justico should bo derived from the common fund, on the backs of tho very people whom tnev coolly propose to disinherit ! Yet they have the audacity to deny tho right of their tellow-citizens who are not landowners to protest, and they assail the men who, representing town electorates in tao Parliament of New Zealand, dare to oppose the contemplated spoliation!

Coughing — sneering— • Handkerchief ; Foot-bath mustard— No relief. Doctors, parson — < Heaven rare— Hearse not wanted — "Peppermint Cure."— -Advt,