CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11079, 2 June 1899, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

SINGLE TAX MISREPRESENTATION) TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— Kirkbride, in his illogical letter of this morning, states that Mr. Fowlds has no practical knowledge of what gives value to farm lands, or he would not make such a ridiculous statement as ' that even if tho farming land was 50 per cent, lower today than before the bridge (Mangere) was built, tho bridgo would be the cause of a largo portion of the remaining value.'" rr°i 6 '' lam a farmer, all( l have in my life bought and sold a good number of sections of land, and I therefore claim that I have a practical knowledge of what gives value to farm lands, and endorse emphatically Mr. Fowlds' above-mentioned statement, and would like to ask Mr. Kirkbrido how many pounds per acre less would tho land lying to the right of the Mangere Bridge, as ono approaches Mangere from Onchunga, be worth at tho present moment if the bridgo did not exist. I see that Mr. Kirkbrido infers that quality of soil has a great deal to do with value. Now, let the soil bo the richest in tho world, but inaccessible, owing to absenco of roads, etc., and what is its worth ? There is stilt in New Zealand land lying idle which is as good as any now in uso, but no one will take it up until the community has made roads and bridges, to enablo settlers to get to and from. Therefore, it is the community, and not the quality of tho soil, which has most to do with the value of tho land. I really do not understand why Mi. Kirkbrido will persist in rushing into print, for any unprejudiced, thinking man must sco that ho is extremely ignorant of the matters he attempts to handle, and at the same time very short-sighted. The reason why tho community has not caused the lands of Avon(lalo.South to rise in price to the same extent as Mangero is because tho community, on account of tho inferior quality of the soil, has not gone there, which proves that it is actually the community that makes tho land valuo, for surely tho land of Surrey Hills is much more valuable than tho land of Mangero, although tho former is very poor and the latter very rich. And why is this? Just simply on account of tho immediate presence of a large community in tho former case, and tho absence of it in the latter; whether the land bo rich or poor makes no difference in its value, if it be absolutely isolated. Tho community lias certainly created both the value of the land and the value of the produce in Mangere district, in spito of Mr. Kirkbride'a statement to the contrary, for if ho were squatted on a piece of land out there, and ho tho only inhabitant of the colony, what would bo tho use of his growing more than he required for his own consumption? For with only his 0110 pair of hands ho could not provide sufficient surplus to warrant any shipowner calling in for freight. It requires the united production of a community to build up an export trade. Therefore I am quite justified, I feel certain, in emphatically endorsing the statemont of Mr. Kirkbride that "the community has no more created all the Mangere land values than it has created all the values of tho Mangero farm produce," for most assuredly it has created both In their entirety. Mr. Kirkbride asks in effect does not tho farmer who first goes to a now country liavo a lot to do with the creation of land value? Yes, most certainly, for until tho first has arrived the second cannot come, and so long as ho remains alone he, in himself, is tho community, but as soon as one or moro others arrive, lie ceases to bo the whole community, but only a unit in it, and it is the united efforts of the whole community which creates tho land values. The ono original farmer creates the whole of tho land valuo while ho is alone. The farmer is the wholo community, therefore the wholo community creates the land value.

Re .Mr. Kirkbride's experience of bad lands, lie says " the losses, in these cases, are to be borno by the individual, whilo the profits arc to be divided among the community." This is another instance of Mr. Kirkbride's inability to see below the veriest surface. In the first place, why did lie select this poor soil? Perhaps it was on account of his want of tiio necessary knowledge; if so, it is not a fair arguroont to adduce in tho present case. But trusting that ho is a fair and honest champion of as-wo-are, wo will waive that point, and will preBtimo thai ho selected poor soil becauso it was all ho could get at what ho considered a reasonable price. And why could he no! got good land at a fair using price in a country with, at that time, less than half a million inhabitants and with a very large area '! Wo contend it was becauso the good lands had been mopped up by tho dog-in-the-manger land speculators, who wero lying low while the community increased in numbers and worked hard and improved tho values, in fact they wero waiting for the increment which they wero not earning. Look, for instance, at the long stretch of the Great South Road from Nowmarkct to Otahuhu, a distance of some seven miles, with seven or eight railway stations in closo proximity, and yet with, comparatively speaking, no population whatever. Why is this ? Because tho community has not yet raised tho market price high enough to suit our masters, the landlords. What, would liavo been tho ease if single tax had boon incorporated in the original constitution of New Zealand ? Why, instead i.l peoplo being huddled together on all tho ugly slopes and gullies of Auckland, they would liavo been spread out all over the lands adjoining tho railway lines from Auckland to Onchunga and Henderson, especially if some rational scheme of railway management had also teen included. Therefore if single Mix had been in vogue when Mr. Kirkbrido took up land he would have been able to get good land, on fair terms, within a reasonable distance from Auckland, and, moreover, would not have required to lock up any money in tho purchase of tho land itself. But, for argument sake, lot us say that in spite of this ho still took up bad land, his annual rent or tax on tho bare land value would have amounted to very little, and if, owing to the poorness of the soil, tho value did not go up, but on the other hand went down, tho community not being attracted, his annual rent would decrease. That is one of the great beauties of tho single tax; the losses sustained owing to decrease in land values, as much as the profits from increased values, are divided among tho community, instead of, as at present, as Mr. Kirkbrido says, borne by the individual. That is, to quote Mr. Fowlds, " the pioneers are to pay in proportion to the benefits reooived." Mr. ICirkbrido mentions the estates now being worked by the Estates Company, and shows that they only earned in 1895 3.46 per cent, on tho estimated valuo of land, shook, etc. I would like,to ask Mr. Kirkbrido if ho considors all tho land held by the above company is being worked as well, and made to earn as much, as it would if it wore cut up into, say, IOCO-acro farms ? Tho plain fact of the- matter is that very large areas are being held simply for tho unearned incremont, and if the company still held them when single tax was fully adopted and could not mako their requisite 4 or 5 per cent., they would have to abandon, but long before the single tax amounted to tho full, say, 5 por cent., tho Estates Company would have disposed of all its lands and closed its doors, much to tho advantage of the colony, for the proposal of the single-taxers is, that tho singlo tax shall bo introduced gradually, say, Id in tho £ additional every five years, which means that it would be 50 years before fully accomplished, and during the earlier years largo estates would bo cut up and disposed of. Mr. Kirkbrido tries to bo extremely funny, but, unfortunately, lie has the wrong end of tho stick. Mr. Fowlds said: "If Mr. Kirkbride owned the whole of Now Zealand, all land values would vanish." Mr. Kirkbride Bays in reply: "However did Mr. Fowlds discover it would bo impossible to got anyone—even a Chinaman—to come and take this land ?" I certainly side here again with Mr. Fowlds, for, if Mr. Kirkbride were the only inhabitant of New Zealand, and anyone else wanted a slice of the country, I much fear ho would not consult Mr. Kirkbride at all, but just' squat down where he chose, and, there being no police, etc., I think, in the first place, it would bo a long time before he found out they were here, and, in the second place, if ho found out and objected, my fears are that the second comer would soon be the whole community.

Mr. Kirkbridc quotes poetry, but ho seems to forget that petulance is not sarcasm, and that silly witticisms are seldom to '.he point. Mr. Fowlds in his letter has only made a few extremely plain statements, which any per son, malo or female, can easily understand, if they have not first of all decided that they will not understand. None so blind as those who wont see, excepting those who are so blind tiiat they cannot see that they don't want to see. When I read the poetical quotation, the following, at once, ran through my mind:— And still the wonder grew How one large head could carry brains so few. Mr. Fowlds has succeeded in enabling many thinking men to see the advantages of single tax, and, I feel sure, our friend Mr. Kirkbride, when he reaches the better land and learns a few things' he dbes not know now, will fairly weep to think that he had made so great a mistake as not to see the justice and wisdom of the theory and to advocate it* adoption. - - '' 'i : -. • And I, a farmer, am convinced, after very careful study and consideration, that .the single tax is .the very thing needed, both for the farmer and everyone else, excepting mo land speculator,"' for where the values are there will the tax bo— value, no tax._ Mo already have tho first instalment of .'ingle tax r and has it done us any harm to the community ? Perhaps it has done some slight in- 1

jury to a certain class, but what reform was ever introduced that did not touch soma one; but we must always endeavour to do tho greatest good to the greatest number. My contention is that the land tax should at ouco be doubled, and that all duties which aro paid by actual producers, such as farmers, minoowners, timber-millers, etc., should at the same time be reduced as much as possible and ultimately abolished. I must apologise for the length of this 'otter, but plead the great importance of the subject.— am,.etc., J. H. Phillips.