THE INFAMOUS LAND BILL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 16358, 30 September 1913, Page 3

THE INFAMOUS LAND BILL.

(By JASON.) It is impossible to imagine a condition of things under which human beings could subsist without tho land. Man needs the land to walk about on when waking, to sleep upon when ho would rest, to lie in when dead; the land is just n.s important to him as air, fire, water; the land feeds him, clothes him, is his final bourne. The grazier who, by permission of tho peopK holds land" under license may legitimately protest against his neighbour's sheep eating his grass; tho leaseholder and the freeholder may threaten with prosecution tho individual who ventures to trespass beyond a certain boundary lino, hut their right to do so is derived from the people to whom tho land belongs. The holding of tho land is a mere matter of convenience. The land never ceases to belong to the pooplo, and this is where many labour under a very grave misapprehension. Because a man holds the titlo deeds conveying the foe-simple, he runs away with the impression that the land is his absolutely. In his heart ho says: "It is all mine—mine!" It is not so. Tho people, through their Legislature, can follow that laud and impose such taxation as would be more than tho amount of a rent; such taxation as—lot the. freeholder flourish his ■ deeds as ho may—would render it impossible for the land to continue to bo so held. The power remains with the people to whom the land belongs; and there exist no rights superior to tho will of the peOiple. Freehold, leasehold, license nro but a convenience conveying certain authorities against individuals; they are valueless against the authority of the mass. These observations seem to be called for because of the very greatly exaggerated ideas prevailing in some high quarters regarding rights believed to have been acquired under deeds and by possession occupancy. Tlie rights are against tho individual trespasser; there arc no rights at all against tho authority of tho people when constitutionally expressed. In the early days of colonisation, when financial exigencies were extremely pressing, it was deemed expedient to Rive tho foe-simplo to very extensive areas on very easy terms. To-day, with a larger and an ever-increasing population, when not only what is called closer settlement but more, profitable occupation is demanded if the dominion is to continue to progress, it has been deemed desirable for the State to re-acquire the rights granted against intrusion by the individual, so that tho large areas may bo subdivided into very many farms. In carrying out this policy, 1,25)6,942 acres—comparatively hut a small area—have been reacquired at a cost to tho people of £5.945,071. Without in any way dipping into the question of the values* given to tho Natives- for the acquirement of large areas, tho sale l ; of land as in tho Auckland district—at 2s 6d per acre, together with the other low prices and advantages allowed to the early settlers, in the face of tho figures given and tho fact that tho occupancy of the land has yielded very largo * revenues since the moment of its possession it must bo obvious "iat in the making of repurchases the people have paid verv heavy interest on tho money tho settlers paid for the land in the first instance.

It is not enough that the too generous feeding of the fat sow should be stopped. It is now acknowledged that tho indefeasible right of tho people over tho land should be peremptorily asserted. The land is now required for dairying and farming purposes ; pooplo now must be permitted to occupy tho land, not only because they may bo enabled to produce the mean's for their own living, but for tho living of others. Tho whole future of this dominion is bound up in tho land question. When, therefore, a government is found loudly proclaiming that it is heart and soul in favour of settlement and still more settlement, whilst it brings down a measure calculated to strengthen the hold upon tlie land of tho mere grazier, it deserves to be scouted by tho people. Under Clauso 26 of this infamous Land Bill the holders of leases of grazing runs may acquire the fee simple, r,o that tho people may continue to pay large sums for the re-acquirement of what is their own property; the owner of a. license for tho occupation of pastoral land within the Hauraki mining district may acquire the fee simple of the land he occupies under license. It is true that the purchase of the fee simple does not convey to him the right to the minerals, but, as in a case cited in my last communication, the owner can charge any company or party any prico he chooses to fix for the right to break the surface and occupy a small portion in order that the minerals may be worked. Tlie minerals will remain hidden undeveloped wealth until the terms of the owner in regard to the surface are complied with. This provision is of especial interest to the miners. On the expiration of a pastoral license, the land comprised being .subdivided into two or more runs, the licensee is given an absolute right to a new license to the run he chooses to select; this is in tho interest of—more settlement! If the "Governor " determines that tho whole of any pastoral run shall be a<rain let, the licensee shall bo " entitled " to receive a new license. Provision is made for the raising of loans in order to repurchase lands from the present holders so that the system of groasing the fat sow may bo continued.

_ The Bill is a measure to give freehold rights to every class of landholder regardless of the fact that the concession may not he to the general interest, and may havo to he bought back again, the people paying high prices. It is the freehold gone mad; it is an infamous measure. Will the people submit to it? Will they be content to have their property used to make the rich richer, whilst the man who would till the ground shivers outside the fence? That remains to be seen. The people should arise and insist that the weapon of taxation they hold in their hands should bo used, and used, too, with powerful effect.