MANAWATU EVENING STANDARD Circulation, 3,200 Copies Daily. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1905. THE LAND QUESTION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8144, 18 November 1905, Page 4

MANAWATU EVENING STANDARD Circulation, 3,200 Copies Daily. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1905. THE LAND QUESTION.

The most important question before tlie people at the coming election is that of the tenure of the land. It has bulked large in colonial politics for many years and is apparently no nearer settlement than it has ever been. "When faced with a practically unanimous demand for the freehold by the people, the Government which professed to believe chat the leasehold tenure was the best for the colony went through a variety of political gymnastics with a view to squaring what was supposed to be their unalterable policy with the undoubted and expressed wish of the people. The laborious efforts of the Premier and many of his followers to explain their votes to the electors since have been positively painful. .In this electorate, for instance, we have Mr W. T. Wood telling his constituents that he favoured the freehold tor back-block settlers and the leasehold for those who took up land under the Land for Settlements Act, because the former had to undergo privations while the latter had his land already cleared for him. Quite a number of people have failed to see how in principle the t«"0 cases can be different. Surely the same reasons which make it right that the back blocks settler should have the freehold apply to the ease of the Lands for Settlement settler. It would be interesting to learn by what processes of reasoning Mr Wood has arrived at the conclusion, that whab is good for tlie man in the back blocks is not good for his fellow on the cleared open country. We think the latter is just as eager as the former to satisfy j his desire to call his land his own, and is just as likely to make as good a settler if he has the freehold. As we have said this is the most important question that can concern any country, but the astute manoeuvring of the Premier has obscured the issues somewhat- He has declined to declare whether he adheres to the traditional' policy of his party and to say whether he stands or falls by that policy. Slill it remains for the j electors to know how candidates feel on this subject. The people have a right to demand that a candidate for their

suffrages shall say 6n.which side of the fence he is. Yes-no answers will not be accepted. Here are Mr W. T. Wood's performances 'on the land question:— ■ ■'" '

In 1904 he voted against Mr Massey's amendment, thus declaring that Crown tenants should not be allowed the option. of the freehold and that, the House was hot competent" to devise remedial measures in connection with the land, question without the assistance of a Eoyal Commission. " ;•■;-;

In 1905 he voted against Mr Massey's amendment, which declared that the Government had <: failed to formulate any land policy which will grant to the tenants of the Crown the right to acquire the freehold of their farms on equitable terms." [Mr Seddon refused to accept this as a no-confidence motion and members were not therefore bound to vote with their party.] . .

On October 11th, 1905, Mr Wood voted in favour of Mr E McKenzie's amendment " that no further leases in perpetuity be granted." . '.'.

On the same day he voted in fa-our. of a further amendment by Mr McKenzie " that present lessees of land under the Land forjSettleinent Act shall not have the right to acquire the freehold."

In the House on July loth, 1903, Mr Wood stated definitely that he was a leaseholder and did not qualify it in any way.

Where does Mr Wood stand on this question ? He has stated in the House that he is a leaseholder and lias voted accordingly, and now he is in favour of one section of the community, having the freehold. It is quite evident, despite his assertions at Zealandia Hall, he is decidedly shaky on the land.question.