CORRESPONDENCE.

Marlborough Express, Volume LIII, Issue 102, 1 May 1919, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

LAND SETTLEMENT,

[to the editor.]

Sir, —The best way of settling our soldiers and others on the land has lately been discussed from all points of view, but no one seems to have satisfactorily solved the problem. Under present-day conditions it is one of the greatest problems, if not the greatest problem of all which we have to solve. In the early days of the Greeks and Romans and other greata empires, the solution was easy enough, as tho land belonged to the State, and they had a redistribution now and again. In tho case of conquered countries they enslaved the unfortunate people and distributed their lands among the soldiers. As time went on land was recognised as private property, and was allowed to be bought and sold the same as any other goods and chattels. Then tho trouble commenced, and it has been the main cause of all the great revolutions in the world, and it was the cause of the birth of that fiend Bolshevism. I am quite sure British sense of justice and fair play will be proof against that devil and his blood-thirstiness if we set to work in earnest to solve the problem.

Tliore is something radically wrong in this young country if we cannot find sufficient land at a reasonable price for all our returned men J.o settle on if they wish to do so. First of all the soldier should have good hind easy of access, and he should get it at a price that will not entail an immediately hard and trying life provided Ue is thrifty and industrious. It is not a bit of use to put these men on poor country whero ' the conditions will be hard and strenuous for years, nor is it any use to put them on good, high-priced land if they cannot pay their way. If we do these things we are simply creating discontent and unrest which will end in trouble. Already a lot of the men in the Auckland district have thrown up their holdings. Now, my idea of a solution is this; whether it is feasible or not I will leave to those who are better up in finance than I am: That the soldiers should have the land as a free gift ;for services rendered. If it cannot be given free, then at the lowest possible rate, so that he may make a good,' comfortable living _ off it without an unreasonable strain. The gift should be up to a capital value of £2000; that would be equal to £100 per annum. Tho soldier should have the privilege of living on cr oil: j the land as he chose. If he lives off it, then t he should be obliged to have a manager or tenant on it, as it should be settled for the sake of population. He should not be allowed to sell to anyone so long as he lived. . Now the query is: How is this to be done? There are still hundreds of thousands of acres of tho best land held in larger blocks that would make small holdings that a man could make a living, and rear a family on, and that is what the country wants. But how, in fairness to all, are these lands to bo obtained at a price that justice may bo done to the soldier? We mist all be prepared to make a sacrifice in the shape of taxation for the soldier's benefit. He has made his sacrifice, in many cases the supremo one. Now it is our turn to. make ours. The owner of tho land is entitled to the market value of his land, whatever it may be. No one with common .sense, can dispute that. The land should 'be paid for at its value to the owner in bonds bearing a fair n\te of interest, with so much added as sinking fund. In so many years the debt would be wiped out. The land should either bo given to the soldier or he should get it at a reduction of from one-third. to twothirds of the cost price, as the country can stand the strain. The difference would have to bo made up by taxation, which would be spread over the whole country, and there would be no injustice done, and wo should have a contented lot of settlers, instead of a lot of discontented men. Discontent is the mainspring of revolution. One hears people say: "There is no land in Maryborough for settlement." This is the greatest "bunkum." There are hundreds of thousands of acres here that can be cut up. What about the Clarence Valley? I suppose there are two or three hundred thousand acres in there that would cut up into runs and farms. For sheep and wool the south side cannot be beaten in New Zealand. At present ! there is no road in, but I am told that a good road can be got over '.he Conway Saddle, which would not be a very great expense, and would tap the valley about the centre. Then, with a bridge over the Clarence to the north side, it would tap the whole valley, making one of the finest settlements in the country at comparatively little cost. Practically all the valley is Government land, so there would be no cost of purchase. At present the Clarence is almost "terra incognita," but it is" quite time it became known. One hears a good deal of adverse criticism re tho purchase of Erina and the Wither Run for close settlement. It is frequently stated that the Government paid more than they were worth. The probabilities are that these properties were sold to the Government for less than they were worth to their former owners. If the present settlers can make a "do" at all on their holdings the former owners must have been making more out of the land, as their expenses would be 'so much less. For instance, I understand that Erina was sold by the late owner at £5 per acre. It is cut up into small runs and farms. Each settler then has to fence, build his house and outbuildings, in fact establish himself in a home which . will cost him anything up to £3 per I acre or more-. That puts £8 an acre on the land at once. Tf the settler can pny his way and make interest at £8 an acre, surely £5 per aero was not more than the property was worth to the former owner. What the land is worth to the "big" man and what it is worth to the "small" man nro two different things, especially if the latter gets caught by one or two bad seasons for a start, if we can afford to pay £4,500^)00 for the luxury of Prohibition, surely wo can afford to pay the farmer tho value of his land. Or is the longsuffering farmer always to be the wot nurse of the nation?1 I think f am quite safe in stating that the last four years the farmers have sacrificed more than tho whole of the rost of the community to help win tho war, barring, of course, our soldiers. I have no doubt I shall tread on a soft corn or two, but I nm open to conviction if I am in the wrong. F. LTSSAMAN-