FINAL WORD ON THE LAND QUESTION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1715, 11 January 1905, Page 62

FINAL WORD ON THE LAND QUESTION.

(To the Editor “N.Z. Mail.”)

Sir, —In the controversy on the land question, to' which, you have within the last few weeks given space in the “New Zealand Times,” the point I have wished to be considered is, in my opinion, of such vital importance to 3New Zealand that, if you will allow, I will make one more attempt to obtain for it the consideration which I respectfully think the “people’’ of New Zealand should give to it. I must also ask you to allow me to declare, which I truthfully do, that I have no personal interest in the land question, but regard it merely as I think every citizen of New Zealand, whether holding land or not, should do. My point is this—viz., that in New Zealand the sale of land by the State to an individual for value constitutes a contract in perfectly well-understood terms, and I hold that the State must in this, as in every contract with individuals, observe and keep absolutely “good faith” on peril of producing general bankruptcy and national disaster ; and. finally, I allege that by the existing Land Tax Act the contract of sale and purchase of land by the State to individuals previous to the passing of that act is wantonly broken, and the “good faith” of the State consequently tainted.

In support of my contention, I point out—(1) That all legal authorities, as distinguished from Legislative authorities, are clear, as is also common-sense, as to the meaning and intention of a Crown grant issued to a purchaser of land for value. I hold, therefore, that it is perfectly futile to appeal, as my opponents do, to “rights of man” or feudal customs, to give to a Crown grant in New Zealand a meaning different to that which judicial authority and common-sense has given it. (2) I point out that under our own Land for Settlements Act the holder of a Crown grant of land for value is regarded as the owner of the whole value of the land specified in the Crown grant, so that when the State desires to reacquire land it had previously sold the State pays to the holder the whole value of the land as it stands, without any deduction on account of the alleged “unearned increment” or value “created by the community.” That is the position I have taken and adhered to throughout this controversy, and I have not as yet heard anything from my opponents to shake that position.—l am, etc., a. McDonald. Shannon, January 3rd.