THE FIGHT FOR THE FREEHOLD.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8190, 3 August 1912, Page 8

THE FIGHT FOR THE FREEHOLD.

Tho "Taranaki Herald" has all along stood for the freehold. It has supported u party which was in substantial agreement that all Crown tenants should bo given tho “freehold." It had committed itself in innumerable ways to the contention that tho “freehold” is essential to secure any fixed interest on tho part of the occupant in tho development of land.

But now the United Labor Party comes along with a very definite proposal that Jill tenants—whether tho tenants of tho Crown' lands, or of any other lands— Eiha.ll bo made freeholders of tho lands occupied by them, with this saving clause that hereafter no "freehold” shall give to auv ono a "hold" on community created values. At this tho “Herald,” under tho authorship of Hr "Delta,” makes a great outcry concerning tho United Labor Party's land programme.

Tho attack begins by stating that the article by Hr Hills in tho Farmer's Special on "Land Monopoly and How To End It" proposes that "tho State shall own all lands in town and country," and "that all lands are to be disEosed of by advertising them, and ( sollig by auction to would-bo tenants.”

Does tho "Herald” really want all occupants of lands to have tho "freehold" of tho lands which they occupy? Of course no such arrangement could ho made for those who occupy tho land, unless it is provided in the "freehold" that when occupancy changes tho freehold shall also change. May be tho '‘Herald” could figure out some way by which it could be arranged that one could occupy a given piece of land With tho "freehold," a,ud somo other have tho “freehold" to the same land at tho same time without occupying it. If it cannot do so, then the position of tho United Labor Party must stand.

That menus freehold for the occupant only, and tho abolition of all contracts with tenants of every sort by which any person can become tho personal tenant of another. Every man’s contract for the occupancy of land should bo with tho State itself, not with another individual. and every such contract with tho State should provide for perpetual possession, tor exclusive control, by the occupant eo long as ho remains the occupant. If ho is not interested cnougA in the land to occupy it, it would bo difficult to determine how ho could use jt. If ho is not going to use it, ho can have no uso for it. If ho has no use for tho land lie can have no use for a freehold - Tu land he will not uso. Ho ■aught not to bo ablo to uso those who j!o uso tho land. Taranaki is a very interesting country. 6y the same mail comes the "Stratford Bvening Post” with tho report of n pnb lie address of Mr Buckeridge, the organising secretary of the Farmers’ Union. Mr Buckeridgo is reported ns saying:— *'Wo were pleased to call our most secure tenure ‘’freehold.’ That was what, tho pioneers enmc from tho old land to get piece of land they could call their awn.” The report then says that he quoted Professor Mills in the "New Zealand Times" to tho effect that unearned increment belonged to tho State. This he characterised as a lot of bosh. Hero aro several points of interest.

First, kilo freehold is defended. Does tho organiser of the Farmers’ Union, ask for the freehold for only a portion of those who uso land, or for all of those who Use land ? If he only wants a portion of the users of land to have tho “freehold.'' how will ho defend his position? If ho wants all of the users of land to havo a "freehold," then ho stands with tho position of the United Labor Party and connot complain. Secondly, it is not quite clear that "the pioneers came from tho Old Land to get the ‘freehold’ here." It is very l certain that they came from tho Old Laud because they could not get tho ‘‘freehold’’ there. Tho trouble with tho "freehold" in tho Old Land was that those who used the land could not get the "freehold," and those who had tho "freehold" would not uso tho land. If .ve aro going to re-ereato the same conditions in New Zealand, then for most nf the people they may as well have stayed in the Old Land as to havo sought out the new one.

Thirdly, the organiser of tho Fanners’ Upion is quite mistaken when ho speaks of ‘‘unearned increment" as having entered into the discussion of land monopoly by Mr Mills. He does not use tho terra "unearned increment." There is no such thing as any increment in land which is not learned. The increment moans increased values. But all such increases in values are earned by somo one. It is so common that those who get them do not earn them that they aro spoken of ns being unearned. They aro unearned by those who usually get them. They are earned by others who do not get them. Is it possible that the Farmers’ Union is ready to-make a fight for the purpose of getting what it does not earn for the few by a programme which will require the many to earn what I hoy do not get? If it does, it will keep It busy to justify its position; if it. does not it is with tho United Labor Party. Fourthly, values which attach to any niece of land which were not created by. those on tho land must have been created by those off that piece of land, but, still in existence. Tho State is the sole

and only body able to act for them. 5- ~ ..[i s must go to the Stao in trust; f,,r loos,- by who„e enterprise they arc! i- 1 mid. Tit her that or you must justiry! 1-king what does not belong to you.