A PLEA FOR A PHILOSOPHIC ATTITUDE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 6027, 11 October 1906, Page 6

A PLEA FOR A PHILOSOPHIC ATTITUDE

Our evening contemporary is doing such excellent service in commending tho Land Bill to the country that it is with a complete confidence of being understood that we enter ah emphatic protest against one of its most anxious contentions. We refer to its unrestrained hostility to the proposal, added to the bill by the Land Committee, and apparently accepted by the Government, that the lessee-in-perpetuity should share with tho holder of a renewable lease the high privilege of paying off 90 per cent, of the capital value of his holding. Upon the .■ comfortable situation of the lessee-in-perpetuity, and the impropriety of giving him a preference . upon a preference, except with tho end of making a bargain that will ultimately work ,to the good of tho State. ? we are in the. most complete agreement with our contemporary. Much as wo dislike tho proposal that tho holder of the 999-yeare’ lease should bo permitted to secure a nine-tenths freehold if ho is not already satisfied with his immunity from the revaluation which will operate upon tho holder of a renewable lease, we are beginning to think that, as a means of relieving tho State of a very had bargain by the only means consonant with the Government's policy of respecting exlstuTg contracts, the frienda of the Land Bill will. bo well advised to accept, .with whatever grimaces—-and we grimace ourselves —the Land Committee’s proposal, and even, although wo say this with great hesitation, a proposal to grant tho lessees-in-perpetuity the freehold at the present value. As matters stand, tljo loase-in-per-petuity holdings represent so much land value permanently alienated and yielding a fixed revenue, which may bo fair enough now, but which, as the years pass, will become more and more inadequate, until at last the 4 per cent, which is now paid will become a small vulgar fraction per cent. Should the Government sell one of these to its occupant, it will receive so much cash, which -will then be invested in tho purchase of land-'for settlement, and immediately become a living and organic asset, increasing with the years. It is simply a question of selling out a ruinous investment and sinking the proceeds in a good and profitable business. Assuming all the time that existing contracts must be respected, it would bo “good business" even to sell at the original value, if tho knot can be out in no other way. One’s sense of justice revolts at this gratuity, as tho majority against “ the freehold at tho original value” very clearly indicates. So far, it will be seen, we dissent from the “Post’s.” uncompromising cursing of tho Laud Committee’s proposal, warmly as we sympathise with tho spirit of that indignation. The real objection which we offer to the Land Committee's proposal is the injury which it will do to the prospect of inducing any considerable number of lessees-in-perpetuity to convert their holdings into renewable leases. Cur contemporary, wo. are glad to see, has exchanged approval for its original rebellion against the expensive offer held out to lessees-in-perpetuity to make the much-desired conversion. Will it non take a more philosophic attitude upon this new proposal? Although this proposal goes far to nullify the Goverhmeiit's offer to induce conversion, tho new amendment of which tho Minister has given notice —tho provision to apply capital dischargements to the payment of tho rent of renewable leases in bad years—constitutes a set-off which cannot be neglected. It is because the “ Post ” is so good a friend of the bill that we have been tempted to remonstrate against its irreconcilable attitude upon tho point under notice.