The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 1926. THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENTS

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12538, 30 August 1926, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 1926. THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENTS

It is a serious thin-g to meddle with an endowment. Most serious of all when the endowment is national. At present the national endowment towards the upkeep of education and pensions is a land endowment. The land in question is held from the State on lease. The Government’s Land Bill converts that leasehold tenure to a freehold tenure. Because this puts an end to the land revenue of the endowment, it was declared at first by the upholders of the leasehold system that the Bill makes an end of the endowment. To that it was replied that the endowment will not be ended, but that, on the contrary, it will become an endowment of money (obtained by the sale of the endowment lands) invested in good securities, the interest being the revenue of the endowment. All that has happened so far, then, is that one kind of endowment revenue has been substituted for another kind. In the discussion in the House on the change there were two opinions on this point, one maintaining that the change must be beneficial to the endowed objects, the other denouncing it as detrimental. The main lines of the controversy are clear for all to follow. One side urged that the leasehold tenure discourages enterprise and good work on the land, while encouraging the bad farming which makes the land valueless. The other insisted that the’freehold makes too easy the mortgage which always ruins the farmer, while encouraging the speculator who farms the farmer, to the ruin of his farm. The fact, however, is that the decision of the House was not by the weight of one theory over another, but by the weight of numbers. The majority, being a freehold majority, won easily, and the Bill passed without alteration in spite of demur. Presently the Bill will be the law of the land. Simply because the split on the land question has for the first time divided the House on the land question into two unequal parties. As Sir Joseph Ward said, the tail of the Reform Party had got too big. Whatever danger there may be in that situation, it is manifest that the tail was big enough to sweep the issue to the freehold side. We sympathise with Sir Joseph in his regret for the alteration of one of the many projects he has successfully carried out for what he was firmly persuaded to be for the public good. But with Mr Holland, the'Leader of the Opposition, and Mr Forbes, the Leader of the National Party, we must agree that the only thing possible is to bow to the decision of the majority. That is essentially democracy. t So bowing, we must hope that the investment of the proceeds of land sale under this new law will n-ot be to the detriment of the endowment revenue. Therein, of course, lies the danger of this meddling with endowment. At the same time, it must in fairness be acknowledged that the party of the freehold, who honestly believe in the reasons for their view, were, on achieving the majority power in the House, bound to the consistency of putting their view on the Statute Book. This, as the Minister said in his final speech, is the opinion of the House, irrespective of party. It is really an acknowledgment that the majority decision reflects the majority of public opinion.