LAND NATIONALISATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11533, 19 November 1900, Page 3

LAND NATIONALISATION.

TO THB BDITOB. Sir,—An old land nationaliser of almost 20 years' standing could not find a pleasantcr surprise on his arrival at Auckland, his future home, than to fall right into the middle of a land law reform discussion in the best, or anyhow, one of the best of New Zealand papers. I find there is a chance of learning something new on the old question, especially from to-day's letter of Mr. Charles Hardy. The only fault* in the letter which slightly mars its beauty, is , the omission of a few details of information without which at least my perhaps rather obtuse, mind cannot quite grasp his novel scheme. So, for instance, I should much like to learn how the land, after it is divided more equably, is to remain so. I do not suppose Mr. Hardy will share a certain communist's views who, when asked how matters would turn out if after an equal division A save 3 and gets rich while B wastes his property and becomes poor, replied: Well, ::n that case we shall divide again." Practically that is the way in which things have worked out in that ideal country of peasant-proprietorship enthusiasts, France, where, according to Toubeau, only one-tenth of the soil is owned by men who cultivate the land -themselves. Wherever land could be freely sold and bought it has finally concentrated in the hands of the few, of which the history of old Rome supplies the best example. To a certain extent also the history of Israel, though I do not like to sadden Mr. Hardy by having to tell him that the land laws of Moses—in reality they date from Ezra's time, if we are rightly informed— havo never been carried out in practice, but remained fine paper monuments of well-in-tentioned men. Let me ask Mr. Hardy how he would proceed if he, with a dozen brothers, all of different trades, inherited a large soction of land. Dividing it equally would not _ do, because only three of the brothers gain their, living from the land, and even they have entirely different wants. One of them, a gardener, only wants a few acres, the other a farmer might cultivate a hundred acres, but the third, a cattle and sheep raiser, wants at least a thousand acres to have free play for his capacities. Now, any business man would 6imply suggest- that the brothers put their land at auction, so that each can bid for as much land as he wants, those who can put a section to best use making the highest bids and the proceeds being divided among' the brothers in equal shares. However, this would hardly please Mr. Hardy, for it would fail to fill the condition he favours, enough land for everybody to make full and best use of his facilities, at least as far as the next generation is concerned. But even some of the brothers might find themselves in an unpleasant predicament, for the buyers of the land will probably have to owe part or the whole of the purchase money on a mortgage, which the other brothers will no doubt sell to obtain the capital required for their own business. As interest has a very unpleasant way of accumulating through its baby compound interest, the case may arrive, which we witness every day, that the capitalists who took the mortgages finally own the land and lease it to cultivators at a, rack rent. Would it not bo a better plan if the brothers did not sell their land at all, but simply leased it to those who pay the highest rent into the common cash-box? Maybe that, even in this case those who rent may find it hard to make both ends meet, and would let tho land pass into other hands, but, anyhow, there would be tho common rental of which they, too, get their share, and this rental income alone would be sufficient to keep them from starving until they can turn their hands to some better paying business than the one they did not succeed in. The rental income of Great Britain, for instance, amounts to something like 180 million pound sterling a year at present, which would give about 14 shillings a week to each family. It is not much, though it is more than many hard-working men and women can earn at present, but anyhow it is something, and is better than to fatten a few dukes, lords, and commoners, who at present own most of the British land. I need hardly mention the effect which such a just distribution of the rental income would have on consumption, and consequently on production. Just think that even a duke can pnly wear, one suit at a. time, can only eat half-a-dozen meals a day, sleep only in one bed and house : at once, and then calculate how many more suits of clothing, meals, beds, and houses would be required if these incomes were divided over the 40 million inhabitants of Great Britain ! Think how this would increase production and the chances of employment for the workers! And as to rackrenting under such conditions. I should like Mr. Hardy to tell me where that could come in. Rack-renting can only exist under two conditions. The one is, that landlords can artificially limit the amount of available land, which would be out of the question where the community is the sole landlord. The other condition presupposes the existing battle for employment, which would be done away with by the effects of (he reform.' Why should a man make exorbitant bids for land which threaten to endanger his livelihood when he can easily make a living- in other fields of production? But I have already written more than I intended and than a perhaps not over-patient editor migh endure, and so for this time I close, with best thanks to Mr. Hardy, and an ardent wish for further enlightenment of my ignorance.—l am, etc., Michael Fmjrscheim. Glenalvon, Auckland, November 16, 1900.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Mr. Charles Hardy begins his letter in this morning's Herald by stating the single tax theory inaccurately, and thus starting from false premises he naturally arrives at wrong conclusions. Will you kindly allow me to try to disentangle his ideas? Sir. Hardy claims that it would be wrong to tax the use of air, water, or sunshine, and that it is # therefore equally wrong to tax the use of'land. He means, no doubt, that the use of land and water, air and sunshine, should be equally free to all, and we quite agree with him. Therefore although we may absolutely own the photograph which the sun prints for us, the fish which we take from the sea, or the grist which the windmill grinds for us, we cannot absolutely own the sunshine, the sea, or the air. Mr. Hardy correctly describes these as " the other elements of nature." Is it not equally obvious that though a man may absolutely own the crop he raises from the soil, or the building he erects on a town site, he cannot absolutely own the soil or the. site? The land is as much an "element of nature" as the water, the air, or the sunshine, and, being limited in quantity, and varied in quality, it is of paramount importance that it should be dealt with justly. Ia point of fact, so far as man is concerned, the land comprises all the other elements., and we can only enjoy air, water, and sunshine by permission of the landowner. He taxes us more for living on the sunny side of the street, or for the advantages of pure air and water; than where those elements are lacking; and wo absolutely deny his right to tnx us at all.

It is very strange that Mr. Hardy cannot recognise the fact that the single tax doctrine is precisely the modern and scientific equivalent for that ancient " Israelitish system," which ho speaks of as based on the doctrine that every adult has a right to sufficient land for the maintenance of himself and family. If every adult has the same equal right to the elements of nature, it follows that land value, in tho economic sense, cannot rightfully exist, as between man and man, although in the nature of things we must allow individual holdings. The only way, therefore, to avoid injustice is for each holder to pay to the community that annual value which attaches to tho land he occupies. But even then such holdings, would have a value of the most precious kind, a value such as that which caused Naboth to cling to his vineyard, that precious but non-commercial value which arises from the love of home and fatherland. Therefore, it is wrong of Mr. Hardy to say that even single tax would take the full value of the land. It would take the commercial value of the landlord's taxing charter, the value of _ the privilege of taking something for nothing, that immoral value of unrequited service which is the only thing our modern Ahabs covet, but it would relieve our landless Naboths from taxation, and thus abolish poverty and restore to the land tho value which we believe its Creator intended value inestimable and unpurchasable, not expressed in £ s d, but in the bright and hopeful lives of a free, prosperous, and contented people.l am, etc.,' F. M. King, Hon. Sec. National Single Tax League. Parnell, November 16. 1900.