THE FARMERS AND THE LAND BILL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXX, Issue 15180, 18 December 1909, Page 8

THE FARMERS AND THE LAND BILL.

We are afraid that Mr C. H. Ensor has not yet mastered the intricacies of Sir Joseph Ward's Land Bill. He tells us in tho letter wo publish this morning that the "only practical purchasing clause" in the measure is Section 12, which gives the holder of a lease-in-perpotuity tho option of acquiring the foe simple of his holding by paying the original value of the land and half the increased value, which he is frank enough to describe on this occasion as the unearned increment. Ho scoffs at Section 11, which gives the tenant tho alternative of acquiring the fee simple at tho original value subject to fivo recurring charges, at intervals of thirty-three years, equal to one-te-nth of the increased value, and says that this would leave the unfortunate purchaser under the " thraldom of a State landlord " for on© hundred and sixty-fivo years. But as a matter of fact, the tenant who acquires tho freehold under Section 11 will be under no greater thraldom than the tenant who acquires it under Section 12. When ho has paid the amount of tho original value or arranged for its rjayment on the instalment system, he will receive his certificate of titlo and will bo froo to deal with the land as he pleases. The only important difference between the two methods of acquisition is that the tenant who purchases under Clause 12 will pay onehalf of the present unearned increment to the State at once, while the tenant who purchases under Clause 11 will pay one-tenth of tho unearned increment that may accrue during the next one hundred and sixty-five years in fivo instalments. In other words, assuming the increased value to amount to £5 an acre, tho purchaser under Section 12 will pay. £2 10s an acre while the purchaser under Section 11 will pay 10s an acre. The unearnod increment would have to amount to £25 an acre before the second purchaser would havo any occasion to regret-his bargain, and even then ho would have £22 10s an acre in his own pocket, against the £2 10s an acre he had to pay to the State. It certainly seoms to us that tho prudent tenant, who had no reason to expoct an unparalleled boom in land values would have no difficulty in making a choico between the two options. Tho other section of the Bill to which Mr Ensor objects, tho one providing a rather sovero penalty for purchasers who make false declarations concerning tho quantity of land thev possess, has been amended, but we do not see ourselves why perjury in connection with land transactions should bo moro lightly regarded than perjury in connection with any of the other transactions of life. Mr Ensor scarcely puts the position fairly when he savs the penalty is provided for acquiring moro than 2500 acres of land, " and third-class land at that." The offence would have been in tho false declaration, not in tho acquisition of tho land. Of course, wo shall not he expected to agreo with our correspondent in describing tho State's charge upon tho unearned increment as "confiscation," hut wo could wish that there wero somo means of ascertaining precisely how much of tho in-

creased value had been created by the owner or tho tenant and how much by tho efforts and sacrifices of tho public. We are inolined to think" that if the unearned increment wero distributed on this basis tho Stato would receive a much larger share than is awarded to it by Sir Joseph Ward's Bill.