CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10129, 12 May 1896, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

THOUGHTS UN POLITICS, No. % TO THE KMTOR. SlB, —' Honourable R. J. Seddon, in his speech at Hokitika. on 20th ultimo, included in the Government programme the abolition of distraint for rent. His motives, no doubt, are good. He wants to benefit the poor,but he will assuredly injure them. All history has pioved that such legislative interference as that now [imposed, works out the very opposite effect to that intended. Many of the political experiments being tried here now have been tried in other countries and found wanting over «nd over again, and the poor have been the principal sufferers. .So limy will be in this case. First of all then, it the proposed measure become law, landlords will require tenants to pay rent monthly in advance, or that the rent be guaranteed by known and responsible persons. The Legislature is not omnipotent. It cannot compel capitalists to erect houses to be let. Those who might, if left alone, invest their money in building houses, certainly would not do so if harassed with many resti ietions. Therefore houses would be fewer and rents higher; only the better class of houses would be l.uilt, and therefore the poor would be most inconvenienced. Secondly, the proposed Act is unnecessaiy. It is a mistake to imagine that the present law of distraint is abused or oppressive. I can write with some authority, having had 29 years experience in business and semipublic life. We do not distrain in 3 per cent, of our houses per annum; and I feel pretty sure the other estate agents would say that that is about their own average too. Distraining is a painful, troublesome, and expensive nuisance, seldom resorted to unless fraud or wilful destruction of property be suspected. A tenant who is " dead-broke" is generally notified to quit, and wished good speed, but he sometimes artfully stipulates that his cartage be paid—which is then done from Hobson's choice. Tenants are quite able to take care of themselves; it is the landlords who need protecting. Some tenants burn mantlepieces, wainscotting, fencing, and otherwise shamefully destroy property. Now, the threat of distraint can be made, and generally it is all that is necessary, but i? landlords are to be given over entirely to the mercy of tenants, then they will be very careful who they let into their houses.

Thirdly, if the landlord's remedy by distress is a "barbarous" measure, is it less barbarous when the holder of a bill of sale, or a judgment creditor distrains ? And if itbenot less barbarous, then is it intend -1 to abolish their power also? If not, why not? The holder of a bill of sale has now, under the Chattel Transfer Act of ISS9, only an implied vowel to distrain, just as a landlord with a weekly tenant has. hen the tradesman sells his goods on credit there is no covenant for distraint. If it be intended to abolish only the landlord's right, that will be unfair. When debtors owe tradesmen money the latter can stop credit immediately and withhold their goods to save increase of debt, and if the customers take the goods away without consent the law would imprison them; but a tenant can defy a landlord, and by refusing to vacate a house cau compel the landlord to let him (the tenant) gytdeeper into debt. Mr. Seddon looks upon the seen only, and forgets the unseen. He »ees, as the result of his proposed law, a landlord prevented from distraining, but he fails to look a little further ahead, as every statesman should, and sea the evil effects upon the poor by landlord! and tradesmen refusing to give a little credit, especially in times of sickness and intermittent work.

But again, Mr. Seddon's argument is thai distraint for rent must be abolished, because it is a piece of barbarism." Let us see ij the argument holds good only or specially in this case. If a house be mortgaged and a tenant will not pay his rent, ami consequently the mortgagor cannot pay his interest, is it less barbarous that the mortgagee should distrain upon the mortgagor's furniture! II not, will the law abolish distress in that case also? If the law do abolish it, who will v.hen lend on mortgage? and who, in prospect of such a law, would fail to call up his mortgage? Again, with such a public utterance fresh in people's memory will Crown tenants not consider themselves secure against this piece of barbarism?" A sister colony has already had to sponge out £500,000 arrears of ground rent. And are the settlers here who are borrowing Government money on their homesteads to be secured by law against " this piece of barbarism " if they do not pay their interest ? and are they to he secured against the "barbarism" of seizing their homesteads if they pay neither principal nor interest? And if "a bill abolishing this piece of barbarism " be carried into law what will then become of colonial credit and revenue ?

But further, it distress by legal process is a " piece of barbarism," is it les9 so when levied by Government officials ? And if not, is the proposed law to apply to Harbour Boards, Borough Councils, Educition Boards, and other local bodies, to prevent them from the "barbarism" of distraint? And if it do apply all round, then what remedy will be left, and how will the said bodies meet their financial engagements? And does Mr. Seddou intend that the arrears of land tax, plus 10 per cent, fine, shall not be sued and distrained for ? And as regards the Bank of New Zealand, which is now a State Bank in embryo, will it be less barbarous if it puts in a distress warrant and seizes a farmer's sheep and crops, or a tradesman's stock and furniture? And if it be not less barbarous, will the law prevent " this piece of barbarism " also ? But if it do, what then ? Would John Bull, our mortgagee, be prevented from the " barbarism " of sending out from England a bum bailiff, alias an Official Receiver, to wind us up ? I question whether our entire fleet, the Binemoa, could sweep the Australian squadron from the sea. The fact is, the Premier, many of whose qualities I admire as of the ablest member of the Cabinet, has never adequately thought the matter out, and statesmen cannot think great public questions out when they are harassed resisting attacks to hold place and pay, any more than working meu can think these things out while they are harassed in keeping the wolf from the door and making both ends meet at home. Hence the rich with leisure should fulfil their political obligation, and think on these tilings; and if they do not do so, we shall drift to political perdition. Make the place and pay of Cabinets safe for a given time, and then statesmen will find themselves tranquil enough to look below the surface of things, not only at the seen, but also at the unseen and eternal foundation principle o on which society, politics, economics, and law rest.l am, etc., F. G. Ewikgton