The Oamaru Mail. THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1910.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 10506, 14 July 1910, Page 3

The Oamaru Mail. THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1910.

Whex the Government Land .Bill comes down wo shall know exactly what it contains. In the meantime we must be content with the light cast on the subject by Dr. Findlay in the Cotmcil. That he contributed a very fine speech on the question of land tenure and its importance in the settlement of the lands of the country will be as readily eonceded by all who know the honorable gentleman as by the members of the Council who heard him speak. He did not throw any light on the, principle of the measure which will shortly lie introduced. But that Is a point which can be well left to the occasion which the appearance of the Bill will make. The Attorney-General had much to say about the L.I.P. tenure, which has done much for the development of the best lands resumed from private hands by the policy of the Liberal Government. Of course no one in his senses would dream of agreeing with the Opposition wranglers, senior or junior, who insist that this tenure retarded settlement. The gravamen for them of the situation created by the establishment of the tenure is that it effectually dealt with dummyism. Hefore the L.1.P., dummyism was insolently rampant. After Sir John Mackenzie's Bill came into force dummyism died a natural death. If we have to follow the tenure to the_ grave we must do our utmost to do justice to the important services it rendered to the Dominion. Of the renewable lease it was said by the Attorney-Gene-ral that at all events it was not open to any objection of being a bad bargain to the State. That is the contention of the Opposition, who maintain through thick and thin that the renewable lease is a deterrent of settlement. The figures of the lands report, as published every year by the Department since the tenure came into force, are a complete refutation of this statement. It is, of course, matter of common knowledge that the ballot is rushed every time even whenever there is no option, when the renewable lease is the only tenure under offer, as in the case of national endowment lands. It is of course true that, according to the same index, the favorite tenure when there is a chance of exercising individual predilection is the occupation-with-right-of-purcbase, at one per cent, more than on the leasehold renewable tenure offered. But that is one thing. Quite another is it to say that the renewable lease is a deterrent. The sections go off, oven in the absence of option, like hot cakes. All of which makes it clear that there is no real strength in the cry for granting the freehold to all who have elected to take up land under lease. First in this connection it is necessary not to be mealy-mouthed. It was predicted, we remember, when the proposal to lease public laud was first made that the tenants having political power would very soon in the most unprincipled manner compel the Government of the day to varv'the bargain in their favor by" giving' them the freehold at the original price. Now the threat of the Opposition to compel the Government to grant the.freehold to all tenants at their own price—(for that is what it comes to) —is a deliberate suggestion to the tenants to revolt against their own accepted agreements. As the suggestion probably comes from the same hands as gave us the warning there is no occasion for surprise. There will be, however, reason for wonder if the Government Bill offers the tenants, either present or prospective, anv option of their freehold. The leasehold tenure with right of renewal wives the tenants every security they need for the utmost confidence, and what more do they require for putting their best energies into the development and proper management of their properties ?

Land and Settlement.