THE LABOUR PARTY'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE POPULATION QUESTION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12007, 2 April 1901, Page 6

THE LABOUR PARTY'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE POPULATION QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sin,—Mr Braithwaito's letter ■ under tho obovo heading is simply advocating 5 monstrous injustice. We have bright examples in both Britain and the. United States of what he wants introduced here. Let him look down the same column in which'his own letter appears, and ho will seo what his advocacy would lead to: "The breadwinners having to send their wives and families to the workhouse to get ehelter." Let him read " The Cry of Outcast London/ and No Room to Live," and where every Boventh person is a pauper. Thero are 400 deer parks in England alone, while at- the same time there is so much want. This is what I object to: so much human suffering where it is quite unnecessary.' I am 'as ready as Mr Braithwaite to have our population increased—yes, as fast as Mr Braithwaite' could persuade them tc come—but it would be under just conditions. Then we could take them as fast as they could come. Should they come, we are agreed that their presence would vastly increase tho value of land. J'hold, then, that the increased value would rightly belong to those who produced it. That is natural taxation, to tako all that which the community produces as public revenue simply- because it belongs ;to them. Mr Braithwaite would hand, over all that value to privato individuals, who never earned it, and then lay the burden of taxation on labour,-which the highest authorities declare to be because whatever a man earns by his labour belongs to himself. It has been said wherever taxation is drawn from tho evidences of its expenditure aro always seen in the increased .value'Of land. That is obvious. Tho injustice' and cruelty of Mr Braithwaite's policy is shown' when ho would compel tho labourer on. a starvation wage to buy in the dearest market—that is, to pay a high tariff, or tax, which, whon spent, raises the value of land, the owner of which does not have to work for a living. But it appears still more cruel when he would compel the unemployed to pay taxes for the benefit of land monopoly, p.o matter if his (the toiler's) family are fct tho point of starvation. We, who believe in taking tho communal product of land values as the only just form of taxation, and removing: all taxation from the sensitive shoulders of labour, bcliqve that till men have an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This desirable result cannot be attained in any other way. Herbert Spencer treats this subject in a masterful manner in his " Social Statistics." He says:— " We see that the right of each man to tho use of the earth, limited only by the like rights of his fellow-men, is immediately deduciblc from the law of equal freedom. Wo soo that the maintenance of this right necessarily forbids privato property in land. On examination, all existing titles to such .property turn out to bo invalid, thoso founded on reclamation inclusive.' It appears that not even an equal apportionment of tlie earth r.mongst its inhabitants could generate a> legitimate proprietorship. Wo' ' find, 'if pushed to its ultimate conrcquences, a claim to exclusive possession of the soil involves a land-owning despotism. Wo further 'find that such a claim is constantly denied. by tho enactments of our Legislature. And wo find, lastly, that the theory of cp-heirship of all men to the soil is consistent with tho highest civilisation; aud that, however difficult it may be to embody that theory in fact, equity sternly commands it to be done." Tho late Henry Georgo has shown how it can be done, and the mode is simplicity itself —take tho communal product of land for publio expenses. Mr Braithwaite's letter is a jumbled-up hash of ignorance and He thinks, too, that my former letter was the views of the "labour party." I am a landlord owning 500 acres of good land. I write thus because I love justice and because I have studied and understand the question. Mr Braithwaite makes a great mistake when he says that my view on this matter and others akin to it are the views of. the labour unions. If the unions hold the views which I hold they would eooii be able to emancipate themselves from the thraldom under which they live. For example, neither monopoly nor capital could ever tyranniso over me. And why? Because I own land; and land is a necessity to life. But the labourer who ia landless must accept the terms that the-;)and-owner and the capitalist offer him. I want to put him in possession of his inheritance—give him his share in the soil, and then he will bo like me—he will be independent,—ho will then have an equal right to lifo, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with every other fellow-man.. This 13 the only way that the labourer can come in possession of his share of tho soil. But he can't or won't see it; he believes.in Protection, and Protection really means a rejection of his birthright. Under the present system he has to pay another fellow-man for the right to live; whereas his right to live is equal to that of all other men. If tho labourer would only think, he might see all around him the evidences of injustice. He would see that many men who never earned anything in their lives are immensely rich and thoso who earned wealth are poor enough.—l am, etc., EOBEKT DODDS. Otamita.