A SATISFIED LEASEHOLDER

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 6964, 2 November 1909, Page 4

A SATISFIED LEASEHOLDER

Tho Crown tenant who writes us this morning upon tho question of tenure most certainly disproves, so far as lib personally is concerned, the assertion recently made by Mr Baume that every Crown tenant is “ a ’ dissatisfied freeholder.” Ho does not want the freehold himself, and is apparently of opinion that the majority of the lessees look upon the matter from the same point of view. His suggestion that a plebiscite should bo taken of the settlors holding Crown lands is, however, not very helpful. To do this would imply that the wishes of these settlers bhould bo allowed to determine the matter. Tho truth, of course,, is that upon a question like this the whole community is concerned, for it involves a phase of public policy in regard to tho national estate. It could not for a moment be conceded in argument that because tho Crown tenants desired to possess the freehold it should, therefore, be granted them, nor could it bo' legitimately contended that if they were opposed to conversion it ought not to bo permitted. There are other people concerned in such a transaction. , They have to be heard. To take a 1 plebiscite of tho settlers would be an admission' that with them rested the verdict upon tho land policy to be pursued by tho Dominion—that the rest- of the people were in their hands. For this reason a vote of a special class is undesirable. Even a plebiscite of tho whole country is to be objected to owing to the insuperable difficulty of framing an issue. To ask the bald question of , whether tho electors were in favour of leasehold or freehold would bo an absurdity. Our correspondent may be right in his theory that the bulk of the settlers are well enough satisfied with the tenure under which they hold land from tho Crown. But it may, bo said’ with perfect safety, we think, that a very considerable number, being more concerned with securing the increment of their lands than with usage of their holdings, are disposed to look with favour upon legislation which would give them .greater facilities to traffic in values. The object of tho leasehold system is to secure for use of tho State some share of this increment. Tho object of tho “ freehold campaign ” is to make it a present to the holders of leases by giving them the fee simple. So long as land is attractive to speculators will tho desire to possession of tho freehold bo strong, and will increase with prosperity of tho settler! To tho man who goes upon tho land with little or no capital, tho leasehold, in tho first stage of his affairs, offers everything he could desire. It gives him tho use of land at moderate cost, and permits him to employ his earnings upon improvements instead of “ sinking it” in purchase payments. But when the settler prospers, or when the land passes into tho occupation of successors who are comparatively well-to-do tho increment becomes a matter of serious consideration. Tho farmer has become a speculator, and it is inevitable that he should seek conversion of his holding to freehold. To say it is unwiso for him to do so is not to tho point. The fact is that he thinks otherwise, and his point of view, we are constrained to admit, is not unreasonable. His main objective is .to secure for his own pocket the increment on tho soil. It is hero that public policy and considerations for the national welfare clash with individual interests. If tho State were assured of receiving its just share .of the value accruing to all land tho case for the leasehold would be hardly worth arguing about. As the position stands now. however, it is not to be lightly disposed of. The leasehold has afforded thousands of men the opportunity of gaining a foothold on the soil they never would have secured otherwise, and it gives the State an • authorityover tho future \'alue of its estate which would otherwise go to enrich in-

lividuals. Disputation about tenure is in reality a conflict concerning private and public rights to values. It would cense to vex tho community if the State’s authority over all increment received as much recognition from our politicians as do the privileges of individuals.