EIGHTY-FIVE THOUSAND "THIEVES."

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8680, 24 September 1891, Page 3

EIGHTY-FIVE THOUSAND "THIEVES."

TO THE. EDITOR. ... Sir,— When I arrived in town this morning with the following letter for you I saw a second letter from Messrs. Kelly and Piatt, but I cannot answer their second until their : first one is refuted. They must stick to the point. Last Wednesday you published the AntiPoverty Society -; letter alleging that the landowners of this colony are tfiieves. If the Society appeared before a jury of any twelve men, except perhaps land nationalises, they would find it impossible to prove the truth of their libel. Land nationalisation is, so far as the Society is concerned, more of a disease of the intellect than of the will, and its advocacy is due more to ignorance of political economy than to badness of heart. Many of those who advocate it are good and true men in the best sense, but they are " gone " on that one thing, and do not realise that they are sowing seeds of revolution and libelling the 85,000 landowners in New Zealand. Ido not despair of converting some of them from the error of their fad. But when a patent "cure-all' has taken possession of some men's minds, it is difficult to dislodge the predominant idea and restore the mind to a true balance. Bias for or against a person, thing or theory is hard to fight. To the jaundiced eye everything is yellow, and the anti-poverty friends trace nearly every ill that flesh is heir to to private land owning. Their sincerity I do not doubt, their courage of opinions admire, but their error I deplore. Their letters are proof of Messrs. Kelly and -Piatt's mental confusion, as I now proceed to show. They said : " Right to the kind rests on force, and is unjust, because it involves the appropriation of the produce of others without any equivalent." Let us examine this strange proposition. I have pondered over it for nearly a week. It is not quite clear whether they mean to affirm that all land rests on force, or only some land; whether it is the title to land they mean when they use the term ".right"; whether it is the "force" that is 44 unjust," or the 41 right" that is " unjust." It is not at all clear what they mean by " appropriation of the produce of others," because their proposition is confined to land which only the Creator produced. Now, from such a clumsily-constructed proposition, I infer them to mean that all private landowning rests on the forcible appropriation of "the produce of , others." Such a proposition is as fallacious as mischievous, and is calculated to inflame the minds of the landless classes against landowners ; and it is, moreover, calculated to injure the working man by making the farmers and landlords say: "We will not spend a penny more than is necessary in improvements while orgauised efforts are being made to nationalise our land, or despoil us of our own." ■ .-' Farmers work harder and longer hours ior smaller pay, and do more ffood to the colony chan any other class of men, and if the AntiPoverty revolution comes about they would be despoiled of their freeholds, which they have honestly earned with the sweat of their brows. (1) I deny that the right to the land rests on force; (2) deny that the tenure is unjust; (3) deny that the produce of others has been appropriated ; and (4) I affirm that an equivaj lent has been paid for the land to the then j proper owners. (1) This colony, by its Government then in power, has disposed of about 19,000.000 acres of land. About 6,000,000 acres were disposed of for religious, educational, charitable, and other purposes; and 13,000,000 acres were sold for over thirteen million pounds sterling. That was done mostly _in the open market. The Government received £102,409 ill cash last year for land, and even last week sold land for cash. There was no 44 force" used. The ownera fairly bought it, and the Government was glad to sell. There was mutual satisfaction and benefit. Hence the extreme fallacy of the argument about " force,'' and the unfairness of egging, on the Government to tax away or confiscate the value of what it has only just been fully paid for. (2) The transaction was not unjust. No one's valid rights have been ignored or trampled on. The propel.' owner got what was asked for in exchange; and even the Anti-Poverty Society, as members of the State, have participated in the benefits and shared the proceeds. (3) I deny that the land was " the produce of others." The Creator was the Sole Producer ; and it is fallacious, misleading, and mischievous to affirm that when the Government sells the virgin soil of the colony in the open market for cash, it sells 41 the produce of others." (4) I affirm that an equivalent has been paid. The full market price at the time was paid by the buyers, and they have, since buying, spent over thirty-five and a-half millions sterling in improving their properties._ Much of that sum went in wages, out of which the working classes have stored in the banks, building societies, and friendly r societies, some portion of the three million pounds sterling now saved. As a further proof that an 41 equivalent" was paid, the Government will not buy some of the land back at a considerable' reduction of price, and Messrs. Kelly and Piatt can now buy land at a much lower price than the owners paid to the Crown for it. The fact is, sir, that hallooing about " land robbery" and laud nationalisation," is wrong and politically inexpedient. " Give a dog a bad name and hang him." Landlords are no worse than capitalists, and if laud be nationalised, 1 lien capital and labour should bo nationalised too ; if that were all done we "should not even then be able to say in the words of Dr. Watts, *' Tis like a little Heaven below." Life would be animated. Small but persistent, united, determined bodies like the Anti-Poverty Society and the Dunedin Liberal Association, . exert more influence than people imagine. " A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." It will not do to pooh-pooh them. They must be watched, argued with, refuted, and confronted by superior organisation.—l am, &c,, F. G. Ewixgton.

THE ANTI-POVERTY SOCIETY. TO THIS EDITOR. Sir, —It appears we have an Anti-Poverty Society whoso members hold the extraordinary belief, that, if they can succeed in nationalising the land, and throw all fiscal burdens upon it, concentrating all taxes upon unimproved value, that that would banish poverty, and solve the problem. To those outside of this society (and they are rather numerous) it appears as if the mere discussion of such wild impracticable theories is about the most mischievous thing body of men can indulge in, and that nothing more effectual could be done to defeat their own ends (if they are serious) and to make poverty among us severe and lasting. I have occasionally met a man with these ideas in his head, and have regarded him as harmless ; but carrying a " bee in his bonnet." 1 mean 110 offence to anyone, but that is the maimer the subject presents itself to my mind, which shows clearly the necessity for mutual forbearance. In may be charged against me that I have not studied the subject sufficiently to entitle me to instruct others upon it. Well, I have not studied, enough to go crazy upon it, as I think there is great danger of some doing, but I have given a good deal of thought and attention to these matters, and have come to the firm conclusion that the idea of land nationalisation is of no practical value whatever; but that it is a most pernicious delusion. * , - The speeches delivered at the Anti-Poverty Society's meeting the other night were chiefly noticeable for the same old whirl of socialistic jargon, the true meaning of which | the mind cannot grasp—if it has any meanwhich I doubt. It is pleasant to find among so much rant, that Mr. G. Peacoeke " agreed that many of the proposed solutions were in the nature of quack nostrums." Mr. Peacocke has rather a large following in this belief. Nevertheless it is necessary to expose quack nostrums—as such—to prevent . them _ insidiously undermining a sound constitution. Mr. Peacoeke goes 011 to say : "If all had equal justice such matters as labour questions, &c., would right themselves." Does he mean such equal justice as is contained in the provisions of the new Taxation Bill? and of which I gave a few specimens in your columns of the 20th of August. If that is his meaning then 1' strongly dissent. ' If it is that he considers there are the oppressors, and those oppressed in this community by all means let us know who they are. His address continues : " Look at the pro bletn in every possible way, and it always comes back to the land question, and he felt strongly 011 this point because to free the land would harm no one; it would simply be freeing thecommon material upon which they air lived, and giving all an equal right to produce from it." Now, what does this mean? If the land is to bear -'the;whole burden of taxation, how then can it be free ? If Mr. Peacocke desires to acquire land " to produce from," what is there to prevent him doing so? I am 3uro he could buy any quantity of land (that has been already nationalised) for half its cpst to the present owners ; if he objects to this, there is plenty of nationalised iand in the hands of the Government that he can purchase; arid not a single so-called conservative will hold up a finger to prevent him acquiring the freehold of as much virgin soil as he desires. But, if Mr. Peacocke has conscientious scruples about .holding freehold property in land, then he can acquire it under the per-petual-lease system. But, I should say, he would have scruples about doing even that ; because! if he, is to hold in perpetuity, how can it be free? and how are the "unborn millions that will be born, and that must be born into the world " to be provided for, and to have "free land to produce from.",

We have not solved the problem yet. and it is evident we cannot all use J the t land as a means of livelihood (it is nor. necessary); but all have an equal right to do so if they desire-it; and those who do use the land must have some sort of lawful fixed tenure, although I have heard it said " land .was Nature's : gift to all, and that it ought to ba as free to oil as the air we breathe." That is a fine sounding phrase, but utter nonsense. In that case we should have one man sowing the seed, and a stronger i man reaping , th« crop. ; Plenty of occupation under such conditions.- One might with equal reason say the flour in our mills ought to be as free to all as the air we breathe; but the owners probably object; and so we have not yet solved the problem ; and poor Stephen Blackpool was right : It is " a muddle ! aw u muddle !" We are now paying the penalty for past sins, and must pay it; but let us not add to them, but exorcise patience and forbearance, and attend to the teaching of the grand old Book " In all labour there is profit, but the tali: of the lips toudeth only to peuury." . " Wisdom is the principal thing ; therefore • get wisdom, and with all thy getting get understanding."—l am, etc., September 19, 1891. War Piiilcox. P.S. —This letter was written 011 Saturday last and thrown on one side, but after reading Mr. Peacocke's letter in this morning's issue, I think, with your kind permission, it might be well to publish it, and I would like to answer (for myself only) two questions put by Mr. Peacocke 1. "Is absolute private property in land right or wrong?" Mr. Peacocke owns a freehold allotment, his house is upon it, he lives in the house, and clothes his person in broadcloth ; he has paid for all these things in current coin of the realm..Has he any exclusive right to them asfagainsb anyone else? He says he has no just right to the land! but that lie has a just right to all the rest. How can this be? I hope he will make his mind easy, and accept the land too; he would be wronging no one by doing so. '2. " Have all the men and women born into the world equal rights to the use of that world?" They practically have equal rights, in all British possessions at least; and as to one set of men appropriating the land and starving out their brothers, its a false alarm. There is a natural unwritten, but always in operation—which regulates the price or value of land, at it does the value of everything else, and no human being possessing the means is debarred from purchasing land any more than lie is debarred from purchasing anything he may require; and why all this cry about injustice, which really docs not exist? I am amazed at Mr. Peacocko taking up such a cry.W.P.

THE ' RAILWAY REFORMER ON THE

RAMPAGE. TO TUB EDITOR. Sir,— letter from Mr. Wile, which appeared in your issue of the 17th, surely proves, amongst other things, that it is high time he " took advice" upon },wo points at leastthat is, if there be a man in the whole civilised world to whose opinion he would bow. Ist. The true meaning of the words abusive and vituperative, and perhaps also when he is about it, of a few others of an opposite character. No wonder Mr. Yaile's friends in the Waikato used to lament that they were not allowed to edit his letters previous to publication. 2nd. How to state an average without leaving out one or more of its essential elements. I am aware that very few men can state an average correctly, but surely it is time that Mr. Vaile endeavoured to do so—just for a change, you know. Here we have him in his last actually making out that it matters not where a man may do his miles of {ravelling, it being, he says, at an "even mileage rate," and yet starting from the same place (says Pukekohe for instance), a man might, under Mr. Vaiie's scheme, go 50 miles for id, but it he velled the same distance in the opposite direction lie would have to pay seven times aa much. Of course I know it useless to argue with Mr. Vaile, but I merely mention this here so that your other correspondents, who may be more reasonable than lie, should see wherein lies the fallacy of Mr. Vaiie's two for one contention, and the theory of the "shillingaverage fare." Put shortly then, it is that, owing to the above preposterous differentiation in fares which pervades his scheme throughout, unless the- long, 'distance travellers, and those outside of, say, Pukekohe, be enormously increased, the "average fare" of Is would not be obtained, upon which Mr, Vaile builds his chance of financial success, by simply doubling the present traffic. I again ask any of your readers who are not heartily sick of this subject, to study and analyse the Government returns, in order to see if they do nob' prove this.— I am, etc., J." B. Whytk.

DR. BAKEWELL'S LETTER ON LOVJETT'S CASE. TO TUB EDITOR. Sir.,—May 1 be permitted to correct two errors in my letter of this morning, which affect the sense?. In a sentence which argues the impossibility that a shortening of an inch and a half in a fractured leg could have escaped the notice of the surgeon, the nurses, and the patient, the last word is, no doubt by my mistake, printed "doctor." Further on, what 1 intended to be necrosis is printed neurosis. This is doubtless the fault of my handwriting, but, as I have before said, my early education was very imperfcet, and did not include a course of Vere Foster. — am, etc., R. 11. Bakewejjj, M.D. September 23rd. CI T Y RAT ES. TO THR EDITOR. Sir,—Your correspondent, "Ratepayer, is not quite just to our worthy Mayor. While be has endeavoured to keep the Free Library expenditure within its revenue, without trespassing 011 moneys given to the city to purchase books, I understood him to reply to those advocating an increase of pay to the employes that the best method of increasing ; available revenue would be to slightly increase the Library rate (not at present a very heavy burthen, seeing the quid pro quo tilt ratepayers receive). The trifling expense for opening the Art Gallery 011 Sunday never needed any increase of the Library rate, or was suggested. I should like your correspondent to prove in some manner that ratepayers in England do not pay rates on empty houses. I very much doubt the statement! Certain ib is that if rates were not paid on emptv houses, then they should not be paid ; on allotments unbuilt upon! How then would the ordinary revenues be raised ? or interest be" paid upon moneys borrowed for drainage and other works tending to improve properties (for unless the interest is paid when due the lender can step in and levy a rate to recoup himself). The Council do "not charge water rates 011 houses unoccupied for six months (if the owners will take the trouble to notify the department). The payment of the water rate in advance is a statutory obligation over which the Council has 110 control. The statement, also, that when a house becomes empty the Council's servant turns the water off, and when ib is required charges 10s for turning it 011 again, is also a "liberal" misstatement. If an owner notifies that the house is empty, and water supply not required, 110 charge is made for turning it 011 again. This charge is only made where in default of payment (after re-, peated . notices and advertisements calling attention), the supply is cut oil" and afterwards put 011. The time and cost of labour sometimes even exceeds this fee. May I call " Ratepayer's" statements " advanced facts," —I am, &c. Another Ratepayer.

Pretty bamboo andcano whatnots, tables, flower stands, etc., etc., just .unpacked, suitable for drawing rooms. Imported and on r sale by Garlick and Crauwell. Sample novelties should be examined early by the ladies to ■ secure the choicest designs. It may save your, like.— you suffer from liver or kidney troubles, Dr. Soule'? American Hop Bitters is the remedy you require. See that you get the genuine. '2 All humanity argues in a circle simply from natural construction of the organs of intellect. E.G. The reasoning vof Newton did not differ from the reasoning of Euclid on the same class of questions, any more than the later vagaries of Comtc differed :■. very much from those of Pythagoras, or the political economy of J, S. Mill from that oj ,< Confucius. Suits to measure at the Mew Zealand Clothing Factory from 50s, trousers from 15s. The tailoring department is under the supervision of Mr. Jaggs, whose reputation for first class fitting is unrivalled. Boys' colonial tweed knicker suits, from 9s 6d; youths' colonial tweed sac suits, from 2&s Gd : men's colonial tweed suits, 30s to 70s — high class, well finished goods. Hallenstein Bros., 15S and 160, Queen-street. Doctors and. Chemists say 110 medicine introduced to the public has over met with the success accorded to Dr. Soule's Genuine American Hop Bitters. 1 To Daricun Grey Hair.—Loekver'.s Sulphur Hair Restorer is the quickest, best, safest; costs, less, effects more than any other. The colour produced is most natural Lockyer's Sulphur is the only English HailRestorer universally sold. , This Blood is the Life.—it your blood is vitiated, your system will gradually become undermined, and health give way. Cleanse the blood with Dr. Soule's American Hoy Bitters. • - 7 If You Live in the country and. cannot obtain Arthur Nathan's Teas, please write to the proprietor. No retailor should charge you more than 2s and lis (id per lb. for either 1 , , India, Ceylon, or China blend: Do not- for- | get, H