OPEN COLUMN.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 11079, 23 November 1898, Page 4

OPEN COLUMN.

Ilia editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed by correspondents.

HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY ! Sib, — Now that the Hatuma matter is not in any way sub judice, there does not appear to be any reaaon why it should not be thoroughly discussed. In dealing with this matter I do not intend going into the question of the necessity for subdivision of large properties or the probable results of the Government policy. This would take up too much of your valuable space.

Mr Purvis Kussell has for the last 40 years held a property which he bought from the Government, and paid for it what was then its fair value. He has also paid a very large sum annually in direct taxation, and a further charge because the directors of public opinion think it fair to impose special taxation upon him because he does not care to reside in the colony, where he has for years been held up to public execration. Having bought his land and paid for it, and, as far as I know, paid all other obligations in the country, he is now, when he has arrived at the age of 82, having spent a fair lifetime on the property, ordered to leave, and receive, if the Government can manage it, such an amount as others who would probably have to borrow jioney are prepared to pay.

Mr Russell claims that for several years he has made a large profit from the run, whioh many of our wise men think is shamefully neglected, while his neighbor, holding a large property, managed it so expensively that on his death there was no estace, and the property has been for years managed by the mortgagee, who is an absentee, and probably does not get the amount of his interest out of it. The Hatuma position has been for many years used for political purposes. More than one politician has mounted to fame on Mr Russell's shoulders ; he has been for years the target at which political venom has been shot, and now the Government which calls itself Liberal thinks it will be liberal with the people at Mr Russell's expense.

Is there any one in the community who dare argue that there is such a public necessity for settling others upon what the law of the country has declined should be in the perpetual occupation of Mr Russell and his heirs ; that there is any justification for the attempt to rob him cf considerably over .£4OOO per annum of his income ? Mr Russell claims that his land is not for sale, and it does seem strange that in this country, although no one considers that he has a right to compel his neighbor to sell any horse, cattle, sheep, or other commodity, that another man fancies, there, are a great many who consider themselves honorable men who see nothing to object to in the enforced eviction of one whose property is coveted by others. Surely Mr Russell, having complied with all the laws of the land, can be allowed to manage his own business. He is no more an absentee than the owners of many large properties in his neighborhood. These are not interfered with; if they were they would surely be entitled to' receive such a sum as would place them in the same .flnanoial position as they are to-day ■without any consideration of the wishes of those who expect to get a lease of possiby 999 years at their own price. The question of absenteeism may be a debatable one. One o£ the large properties adjoining Mr Russell is held by a gentleman who resides on it, but I am not aware that he contributes anything like the same amount to the taxation of the country that Mr Russell does. Whether Hatuma is in any respect fit for cutting up into small areas is a very debatable question, but the larger question is whether it is fair that Mr Russell, ■who 13 not burdened with agents and mortgagees, and is therefore satisfied if he gets 4J per cent for his money, should make way at the point of the Government bayonet for those who could not make a living off it unless they get it at a rate which would pay 7 per cent. In this country what is called freehold is merely the perpetual right of occupation for which a lump sum is paid, while the leasehold in perpetuity gives the same right, the principal difference being the payment of an amount annually instead of a lump sum. But in the case under notice there is another question, for whereas now Hatuma contributes a large amount in direct taxation, if the Government succeeds in its eviction process there will be no more land tax from that land.

When the incident has more Bettled down, I think it will be found that the very general opinion among thinking men will be that we have reason to be thankful that we have a Supreme Court whose members will see, co far •&$ they' can, that no robbery is permitted, even if it be attempted under the attractive form of dispossessing one man from his honest possessions in order that 20 or 30 others may make a living out of the same property. I am, &c,

F. Sutton. Napier, November 22nd, ISDB.