PROBLEMS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10477, 24 June 1897, Page 3

PROBLEMS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln this morning's Herald Mr. Ewingtou tries to make a distinction between the value given to land by the resident community and that which may be said to be due to the action of non-residents. In yesterday's Herald Mr. Bramwell adopts the same tactics, and credits London and New York—(Query: Why not Berlin and Boston with a large share of our unearned increment). ' The ingenious perversity, or perverse ingenuity, of these gentlemen is wonderful, but we are indebted to them, and to all others whose criticisms force us to clear up our definitions. We thank them also for showing, incidentally, that whether the unearned increment be caused by the people of this colony, or by foreigners, it is not caused by individual owners. For practical purposes, we hold with Bishop Nulty, that the land of every country is the common property of the people of that country,'" and if Mr. Ewington's Eskimos, andMr.Bramwell'sNewYorkers wish to share in it, they must come here and take part in our industry. If it suits them better to stay where they are, and to pay us 2s 6d per lb for our wool, it is presumably a mutually beneficial exchange, without any thanks being due, or obligation incurred on either side. With regard to the true ownership of the value of advantageous sites, and of land values in general, we have now arrived at a direct issue, clear and de jnite. Mr. Ewiigton claims that such values will, in justice, belong for ever to the holders of the title deeds. We maintain, on the contrary, that they are the property of the community.. Parchments, however venerable, avail nothing against the prior claim of the State to that royalty which is represented by the ground rent, caused by and due to the people. That is the issue, clear and definite, and on it we are prepared to stand or fall at the tribunal of public opinion. .... One word as to our proposed debenture scheme. Mr. Ewington is mistaken in supposing that it was put forward as a measure of justice. How could it be, when those who had to pay the debentures would receive no wealth in exchanee for them, but merely immunity from further taxation! Mr. Withy and other members of this league have repeatedly explained that it was merely a concession to expediency, put forward as, perhaps, the quickest and cheapest way of stopping the present injustice. We can never admit that A and B have or ever had the right to sell to C the privilege of levying tribute on D, E, F, 6, and all the rest of the alphabet Therefore, whenever D, E, F, G, etc. understand the position and decide to settle the question on its merits, we hold that they have a perfect right to do so. This brings me back to the point I raised in my first letter as to the difficulty of valuing not the land, nor the present ground rent, bat the capital value of the landowner's privilege of collecting the ground rent. If Mr. Ewington is right, then all the wealth actually existing in the country might be

reckoned of less value than that privilege bat if either single tax or Socialism are among the probabilities of the near future, the assessment will shrink according to th» importance which the individual valuec attaches to these contingencies.-! am, etc., F. M. Kino, Hon. Sec. National Single Tax League. Nelson-street, June 22, 1897.