Meeting of Crown Tenants

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXVII, Issue 8561, 16 August 1904, Page 4

Meeting of Crown Tenants

A meeting of Crown tenants was held ' in : the schoolhouse at Tokarahi last night to consider the question of freehold v. leasehold There were about 20 present, and Mr Lindley Murray was voted- to the chair. The Chairman said there was no necessity to explain the reason why they had been called together. He did not intend to join in the discussion, but would like to make a few introductory remarks. Hb considered the question of the land tenure the most serious problem of the day. The principle involved was a very important one. The same principle must be applied to those holding leases in perpetuity as to any leases under the Crown, indeed, he might go further and say leases of any kind. The question was whether they should allow the lands to be monopolised, or be administered by the Crown. When Mr Massey opened his electoral campaign at Balclutha he said he was in favor of giving the option to acquire the freehold to those who desired to do so. This seemed very reasonable, and if he had stopped there there would have been nothing to complain of. But he had stated I that the Crown was entitled to at least a portion of the unearned increment. This was an entirely different matter, and was approaching Socialism. They did not care for this kind of Socialism, though they all might be Socialists in a way. He hoped that when Mr Massey got on to the Government benches he would apply some of his Socialism in his administration. He was of opinion that most of the holdings had increased in value at least a couple of pounds, and if they purchased the freehold they would have to pay the capital value. This altered the aspect of affairs materially. He was sorry the attendance was not larger to discuss a question which interested not only themselves but indirectly the whole colony.

Mr Dasler said he was an out-and-out leaseholder, and if he had not been he would never have applied for a section. Those who were causing all the commotion were the money-lenders and the lawyers. He believed in the leasehold because he had seen so much of the land in the colony sold for a few shillings an acre, land which the Government had had to resume at £7 and £B. What would their children do if this land; was. again alienated ? They had seen the folly of taking the land from the people', and ;yet were talking of again making the same mistake. The whole of the cash sales for land were put to the revenue account, and the Government were only too pleased to see them pay it off, as it provided a very acceptable nest egg. He could remember the timo when a sinking fund had been put aside to pay off the debt, but it had been taken by the Stout-Vogel Government, and if they purchased the freehold tho money would probably go the same way. He believed they were all working for posterity, at any rate their fathers had worked for them. It would be no use to save up a few pounds and then to give it to the Government. He did not consider that a man was any the better off for the freehold. Six by two was all the freehold he wanted. Why should they interfere with the Act. Sir John M'Kenzie was one of the most cl«?ver men in the colony, and his legislation was sound. It was a. shame that anyone should get up an agitation to break the bargain entered into between the Government and the tenant. Plenty of freehold was to be had without breaking any bargain. If the tenants were dissatisfied let them throw up their leases, and there were hundreds who would be only too pleased to take them up. He could assure tenants that- if one clause in the Act was interfered with the whole system of lease in perpetuity was destroyed. The Chairman said he had intended to make a few remarks in regard to the Farmers' Union. At Windsor it was mention:d that the Farmers' Union were instrumental in raising the agitation for the freehold. He was a member of that body, and a loyal member. By working wisely the union was capable of doing a great amount of good for the farmers, but in advocating the freehold they were making a grievous mistake. They were throwing down the gauntlet to the Government, and the gauntlet might be taken up with disadvantage to the settlors. T!i« ndvoc.itps of the freehold claimed that they were backed up by the tenants, but this was not so. It was argued that the freehold would be a good thing in the North Island where they had to pay £4 or £5 in improvements. As a matter of principle this was not right, because wherever sections were taken up the tenants were required to make a certain amount of improvements. He could not see how anyone was to live on land with the freehold if they could not do so with the leasehold. So far as the Farmers' Union were concerned they could do a great deal of good, but they should leave the freehold alone. Mr Dasler moved: "That the Crown tenants of Tokarahi are quite satisfied with the present land tenure and desire no change." Mr Duffy seconded the motion. Mr Porter considered that it was only fair and reasonable that tenants should be allowed the option to acquire the freehold. The idea was not to. compel anyone who preferred the leasehold to change his tenure. A number of members of Parlia ment wished to see the country get the unearned increment, and he could not see why this should be so. He moved as an amendment: "That the Crown tenants be allowed the option to acquire the freehold with duo regard to safeguarding against the aggregation of estates."

Mr M'Gradie seconded the amendment. Mr Dasler said it was scarcely necessary to reply to what had been, said against his resolution. Mr Porter had remarked that there could be no objection to allowing tenants the option to acquire the freehold, but it did that much harm that it broke the bargain entered into, and permitted interference with the most satisfactory land laws they had ever had. Mr Duffy said if Mr Porter's amendment was carried it would enable the selectors to take the best of the sections and leave the poor ones. The position would then be that if a neighbor coveted a leaseholder's section he would be able to buy it over his head. The Chairman explained that Mr Duffy was under a misapprehension. Mr Porter wished the tenant to have the option of buying the freehold of his own holding. Mr Duffy: It can't be done. Mr Porter said he desired the meeting to -understand that there was no wish to compel, but merely to give the option. They should see that the law made provision for retaining the leasehold as well. Mr Duffy: There is no knowing what law will be made.

Mr Porter said if a man had moneysaved he did not see why he should have to seek another investment. There were seasons when a tenant could put moneyaside to provide for hard times. They could not always expect the good seasons they had been having lately. Mr Duffy: If I had a couple of hundred pounds laid aside I would rather keep it in the bank. Mr Porter said there was a danger that the leases would be interfered with whether they went for the option of the freehold or not, as Mr J?eddon in one of his pre-sessional speeches had spoken of revaluation. Mr Dasler: If a man gives up his lease let it go to public auction. Mr Beck said the matter had been prettv well threshed oat. He was sorry for Mr Porter, who had BO one to support him in his desire for the freehold, but he was happy as a leaseholder to be a tenant of the Crown. If there were any interference with the existing land laws there v.-.ts no knowing where it would stop. If a tenant saved enough money to pay for his farm he could lay it aside in case necessity should arise, and could then divide it amongst his family without hanging a millstone round his neck in the shape of the freehold. He could alwavs invest spare money in a way that would j return him the 4£ per cent, rent that he; j would save by acquiring the freehold of his selection. Mr Porter said that if the man had the freehold he would be able to divide the; property between his family. A Voice: Suppose you had thirteen oij a family. Mr Porter: Well, give every one a bits of it. - • . ' ..:; Mr O'Donnell said Mr Porter must have come from Ireland. In that country if you had ten sons it was possible to sjive each a half of the property. He trusted, however, that they would never have the Irish system of land tenure in the colony. The Chairman intimated that- the . remarks were gcltingsomswhai irrelevant. He

wished those present to dispose of the business of the meeting befora- indulging in a discussion of generalities . Mr Dasler's resolution was then submitted to the meeting, and carried by 18 votes to 2. Mr "Dasler said a statement had been made by the Faimera' Union and a section of the Press to the effect that the Crown tenants were mere machines in the hands of the Government, and were afraid to speak their minds on the question of land tenure He considered that this was an insult to the Crown tenants. There was not a Crown tenant who was afraid to go to headquarters with a grievance if he had one He moved: "That the chairman oi this meeting write to the Executive of the Farmers' Union asking them to withdraw the statement members of that body had made to the effect that the Crown tenants were afraid to speak their minds. Mr Beck seconded the motion, which was unanimously carried. _ Speaking of a paragraph in a certain .paper dealing with, the sub 3 ect of interference by tlie land inspectors the Chairntan said* -that - under the Otago Land Board they could not accuse the inspectors of- being officous They tod always; been well treated in this respect. Mr Hutchison said he had heard remarks fall from the lips of previous speakers about putting aside a few hundred pounds. TW gentlemen must have more profitable sections than his, as he found it as much as he could do to make ends meet. If anyone could tell him where to obtain the money he would be in favor of the freehold. He would like the Chairman to explain what the freehold really was. . The Chairman said Mr Hutchison was opening up a very big question. The term freehold was used sentimentally to a certain extent. He considered that the Crown tenants practically had the freehold. Mr Hutchison said if any alteration was to be made in the land laws he would favor the scheme of paying a certain amount off the capital value when possible. This would be a great benefit in the event of bad seasons. Mr Beck: If it would stop at that. Mr Dasler:. There must be no interference whatever with the land laws. Mr Hutchison said he had heard no complaints amongst the Crown tenants. It was those who knew nothing about the circumstances and who were least concerned who were raising-the agitation. The "Chairman said he had been- speaking only recently to a farmer who held a.' freehold, and he had remarked. "By all means let the tenants have the.freehold. I know a man living not far from my place whose section I would like to have, and I will bid up and make him pay for it. I am taxed on £l2 an acre and his leasehold lias a capital value of £B, and probably he is paying no rates." - Mr Dasler contended that even if the tenant acquired the land it was not a freehold. There had been something like £56,000,000 of money borrowed by the colony to set against its assets. There was no 6uch thing as freehold in. land in any country, and never would be. The Chairman said as soon as a man got something of his own be became a Conservative. The tenants had a 999 years' lease, and they wished to preserve this lease. They were therefore Conservatives so far as land tenure was concerned. They had a good thing, and wished to keep it. The meeting, which was a very welldisposed and orderly one, terminated with a vote of thanks to the Press and the chair.