THE LAND BILL

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

THE LAND BILL

(To the Editor “N.Z. Times.") Sir,—-Your pathetic question in yesterday’s issue—“ What are the friends of the Land Bill in the country doing?” —is so touching that I trust you will permit me to furnish a reply ; a reply which doubtless you will disagree with, but which I assure you is correct. Sad, but true,' The fact is, the bill hoe no friends in tho country. From the Bluff to tho North Capo you could not gather a dozen “bona fide” farmers who would a-nrirove of the bill. That is why the friends, country friends, are so silent. It is tho silence of a vacuum. They do not exist. You describe it as tho “apathy of a satisfied majority.” It may bo so, hut it is the kind of majority that politicians do not hanker i after.; Again, in your opinion “every sensible man knows perfectly well that tho feeling in favour of the Government's land policy is overwhelming.” The sensible men are apparently also sparse in numbers and singularly unobtrusive. ■ / ■■■ . But, after all. ibis that wicked Far* mors’ Union that is at tho bottom of tho trouble with their “stage appliances” too, with which the leaders of tho union are seeking to “bluff” the people. Permit mo to say that every meeting of tho, union, held from one end'of the colony to the other, has . been called <m tho initiation of tho members themselves. Wo have no “stage appliances,” bub we do have a conviction deep-rooted in tho minda of the people who live on the land that they and their sons shall not bo Crown tenants for all time. The farmers of New Zealand are determined that they shall have the option of purchase, with restricted areas. They, are not to ba hoodwinked by “national endowments,” so-called, into approval of the balance of the Crown lands being withdrawn from the “optional” j tenure. You generously remark j “that the posses- > sion of a farm . . . does nob

carry with it an aversion from either democracy or commonsense.” Accepting your dictum with gratitude, T may say that the farmers quite realise that the success of tha hill means land nationalisation, perhaps even the single tax in time; trouble with the mortgagees, and dear money now, and many other “gifts” which they simply do not intend to have. , Wo know the views of the Trades and Labour Councils ' and respect them,' but we are not going to allow them to settle the tenure upon which we shall hold our lands—not if wo can help it. The rntetihge held all over the colony are the first indication of that determination. You seek to mipimise the importance of . these meetings. You say that all those present are not farmers, and you ora right—they are not. The Feilding meeting, for instance, was- attended by many townspeople, and why? Because the country towns are with the farmers. They know -the feelings of their best customers and sympathise with them. ; \

There arc only two clauses in th* bill which country people approve of—clause 1, “short title, . and clause 10, "modification of residence condi. tions.” With these exceptions, ~th« people who occupy the land consider the bill unstatesmanlike. because the en ddesired could have been attained without the financial disturbances that these proposals have caused;; inequitable, because it seeks to compel the early settlers to sell their lands and at the same time restricts the market for land; and injurious to the interest of tho colony as a whole,, because it is the first step tending to national!, satiou of tho land.—l em, etc., EDWARD NEWMAN. Turakina, October 9th.