The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, JULY 19, 1907. THE LAND PROPOSALS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 14428, 19 July 1907, Page 6

The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, JULY 19, 1907. THE LAND PROPOSALS.

Whex journals like the Dunedin “Star” and the “New Zealand Timesfall into the error of supposing tliat the Government intends to grant the freehold to Crown tenants at something less than tho present value, we can hardly blame the Opposition organs for drawing the same conclusion from tho Premier’s rather ambiguous allusion to tho subject in the Financial Statement. The “Star,” which is usually well informed on matters of this sort, has allowed its misapprehension to betray it into a very caustic protest ag'ainst the concession to the freeholders. “It is,” it says, “a soiry and stultifying capitulation, quite unnecessary (as we believe) and essentially undesirable, and we are afraid that it will produce a demoralising and disintegrating effect upon the fortunes of the Government and the Liberal party.” The “ Now Zealand Times.” which has still less excuse for mistaking the intentions of tho Government, goes even more astray in its summary of the position. “ Bound to observe the ‘ sacredness of contract,’ ” it says, “ but equally bound to do something to rid the State of an intolerably bad bargain, the Government has found it advisable to surrender tho freehold in this case. Short of tearing up the existing contracts, tho Government could do nothing else. To ask f-ar ‘ the present value ’ as the price of

the freehold, would be merely to decide the lessees to bold fast to their leases. To give the freehold at the ‘original value ’ is clearly impossible. There was, therefore, nothing to do but to pay the penalty of the folly of long ago and grant the freehold at a value fixed by arbitration.” Possibly the Opposition organs, which are now rejoicing over the “ set-back to Socialism,” and calling upon Messrs M’Nab, Fowlds and Millar to resign their seats in the Cabinet, are labouring under the same delusion as the journals we have quoted arc, but it was open to any of them to go to the Premier or the Minister of Lands and ascertain exactly what the intentions of the Government were. Our parliamentary correspondent sent us on Wednesday a statement by Mr M Nab which should have left no doubt on the subject. “ The tenant,” the Minister said, “ will be required to pay to the State the present value of the holding, less the value of his improvements. The tenant, in short, is to get the freehold at what is commonly called present valuation.” Mr M’Nab amplified bis explanation in an interview with our correspondent yesterday, and, iu reply to an inquiry of our own, we have received the following explicit statement from the Premier on the point The assumption that it is proposed to grant the option of the freehold at less than the present value, exclusive of improvements, is absolutely incorrect. The intention is that the purchase shall be at a price equal to the capital value of the land _ when purchased, and the valuation is to bo determined by arbitration, the value, of course, not to include the value of any improvements placed upon the land during the continuance of the lease. Possibly the erroneous impression is due to the fact that in the Financial Statement the position had to be briefly stated. In the Land Bill, however, which will be introduced to-mor-row, the position is quite clear. In face of this statement it is scarcely necessary to say again that the only difference between the propcsal of last year and the proposal of this year is a difference of method. Mr M’Nab made this perfectly clear in his interview with our correspondent yesterday. In the Bill of last year it was proposed to ascertain the “ present value ” by submitting the holding to auction, the only method, our Conservative friends have often told us, by which the real value can be positively determined; hut in the Bill to be introduced to-day it will be proposed to fix the value by arbitration, which to our mind is a much more satisfactory method. The whole of the “hacking-down” and “surrendering” and “scuttling,” then, that the Government has done in this particular part of its policy is to substitute a system of valuation that will protect the tenant from unfair competition for a system that would h;ave exposed him to all its baneful influences. If the freehold is to he conceded at all—and Mr M’Nab settled that point, so far as the Government is concerned, when he introduced his first Land Bill—it could not be conceded on fairer terms than those that are now proposed. We are much more inclined to quarrel with the Government over the inadequate graduated tax it has substituted for its former limitation proposals. , Last session it declared that every one who had more than £50,000 worth of land should he compelled to part with the acres he held above that limit, and that in future no one should be allowed to acquire more than £16,000 worth. If those principles were good a year ago they are good now, and the Government in substituting its graduated tax for its limitation proposals should have seen that they were maintained. But as a matter of fact it now proposes) to place no restraint upon the aggregation of estates up to the unimproved value of £40,000, and to leave it still possible for the speculator .and the monopolist to hold lands up to an almost unlimited value. This is a position to which the progressive members of the House and the progressive party in tne country will never be reconciled. If the Government succeeds in getting this poor substitute upon the Statute Book with the assistance of the Opposition the question will he made a burning one at the next general election with results that will not he altogether agreeable to Sir Joseph Ward and his colleagues; but we trust that the Premier’s good sense will save him from a conflict with hie own supporters upon this point, and that his taxation proposals will he very materially revised before they are submitted to Parliament.