The Evening Star FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 1935. RURAL MORTGAGORS FINAL ADJUSTMENT BILL.

Evening Star, Issue 21991, 29 March 1935, Page 8

The Evening Star FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 1935. RURAL MORTGAGORS FINAL ADJUSTMENT BILL.

This Bill has now passed the House of Representatives, and, although wo have not yet seen the full text of the amendments made by the House, their effect, if not their exact terms, can be judged from the Press messages already published. The so-called “ equity ” clause has been 'abandoned. So far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, it was abandoned with expressions of regret. Few will share the Minister’s emotions in this respect, but there will be many who will find it a matter both of regret and reflection that after all that has been said and written on this topic the Minister should have remained in favour of the proposal to the end. The provision* which have now been made by the House for the final adjustment of the liabilities of farmer mortgagors may be briefly summarised. After a stay order has been in force for five years the liabilities on land and stock are to be reduced to the values of these assets respectively, such values being determined for this purpose by the Adjustment Commission upon the basis, primarily, of the farmer’s actual returns, and subject to a right of appeal to the Court of Jlcview. Unsecured liabilities are then to he discharged to the extent to which the mortgagor’s free assets are unable to meet them, and any amounts by which, mortgages of land or stock have been reduced arc to be included in this adjustment. These provisions follow the original lines of the Bill. The final provisions, however, replacing the abandoned “ equity ” clause, break entirely new ground. Three cases are provided for: first, where the mortgagor elects to remain on the farm; second, where the mortgagee applies for and i» granted permission by the court to take possession of the farm; and third, where the mortgagor elects to walk off. In the second and third of these cases the mortgagor is to receive from the mortgagee compensation (fixed by the court) for his services during the operation of the stay order. N T or can the mortgagee avoid this unpleasant consequence by refraining from taking possession when the mortgagor walks off. If he so refrains, the property is to be sold by tbe court, and the mortgagor’s compensation is to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale. These are extraordinary provisions, and, so far as the House is concerned, they have been passed with extraordinary haste. Introduced for the first time on Wednesday, their passage was completed on Thursday. So swift a flight has left no time for consideration by those chiefly concerned, still less for conference, or protest. It will be seen that the gist of the new provisions is that on the one hand the mortgagee will not. he allowed to eject a farmer without compensating him for his services during the stay order, while, on the other, the farmer

is given the power to enforce payment of such compensation by merely abandoning the jam. The mortgagee has Hobson’s choice and no other. At the commencement of the stay order the mortgagor’s “ services ’’ are thrust upon him, and at its end he is compelled to pay compensation /or these “ services ” if the other party to the contract requires it. The original idea of keeping the farmer on the land has been entirely lost sight of. So far as confiscation is concerned, we can no more distinguish such a proposal from the original equity clause than we can distinguish Tweedledum from Tweedledce. Clearly the Government is determined to submit the mortgagee to a major operation, and on grounds of humanity alone provision should at once be made to have him completely anaesthetised before the proceedings are commenced. For years be has been swathed in restrictive legislation from head to foot, yet left with his capacity for feeling undiminished. The omission to take his emotional reactions into account may prove to be a fatal blunder.