LAND REFORM.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 199, 6 August 1912, Page 5

LAND REFORM.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I have no doubt Mr. Mills gave an interesting address yesterday, as he has a glibness which convinces most of his hearers whether the argument is sound or unsound. But .like Moses, I have a quick temper, and it annoys me that a man should come here, to set us right on the Land question, from America, where one individual holds fifteen million acres. Surely, brother, you should first attend to your own eye 1 We had a sound policy —re-purchase of estates —Mr. Mills' objection to this is that it has increased the value of adjoinng areas. This is a fallacy —land has increased all over the world whether the State practised resumption or not. Take, for instance, the recent purchase of Snerenden by the State. How will that purchase send up the value of Matapiro and Okawa 1 The old Liberal law was that the State had the right to take land at the price indicated by the value produced ; to give in payment of the price replacement value. Ward repealed this and substituted one of his own, that a landowner could put any private value on his land, upon which he must pay graduated land tax, the State having the right to take it at that value, plus 10 per cent. But did the State once do this during Ward’s administration ? No fear 1 These beautiful sentiments sound fine, but how were they practised .’ We have not one single instance of an estate being taken compulsorily under Ward’s amendment. But under the law of resumption, which is to be re-instat-ed (?) I ask Mr. Mills again what is to prevent the land adjoining Sherenden being taken by the same Government at a price representing what the owners make out of it ?— I am, etc., EUSTACE LANE. Hastings, 5/8-12.